Split (1)

train · 418k rows

query_id stringlengths 32 32	query stringlengths 6 5.38k	positive_passages listlengths 1 22	negative_passages listlengths 9 100	subset stringclasses 7 values
8a0c76bdf0599fc95196c40d67a9c194	How to increase my credit score	[ { "docid": "6b225d028539fb9f6cdad851859747e3", "text": "Get a credit card is NOT the answer. The reason people have a bad (or no) credit score is often because they're new to the country, have just turned 18, have previously fallen into arrears or are just bad with money. Getting a credit card is risky because, if you don't stay on top of your payments, it'll just damage your score even more. Now, it sounds like I hate credit cards - but I don't, and they do have their benefits. But avoid them if possible because they can be more hassle than they're worth (ie, paying the credit back on-time, cancelling accounts when the interest comes in, moving money in and out of accounts). It's risky borrowing money from anywhere whether it's a payday lender, a bank, a credit card, etc., so use them as a last resort. If you've got your own income then that's amazing!, try not to live outside of your means and your credit score will look after (and increase) itself. It takes time to build a good credit score, but always make sure you pay the people you owe on time and the full amount. I'd stick with paying your phone provider (and any other direct debits you have setup) and avoid getting a credit card. I'd recommend Noddle to keep track of your credit score and read their FAQ on how to help build it. Unlike Experian, it's free forever so not quite as detailed... but Noddle are owned by CallCredit - one of the biggest Credit Reference Agencies in the UK so they should have the latest information on yourself. In conclusion, if you already have financial commitments like a mobile phone bill, gym membership, store cards, anything that gets paid monthly by direct debit... your credit score will increase (provided you pay the full-amount on time). I hope this helps. PS. I don't work for any of the companies here, but I've been working in the finance sector (more specifically, short-term loans) for 3+ years now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a137feafa12e8c55808779a1912728fd", "text": "\"It's probably important to understand what a credit score is. A credit score is your history of accruing debt and paying it back. It is supplemented by your age, time at current residence, time at previous residences, time at your job, etc. A person with zero debt history can still have a decent score - provided they are well established, a little older and have a good job. The top scores are reserved for those that manage what creditors consider an \"\"appropriate\"\" amount of debt and are well established. In other words, you're good with money and likely have long term roots in the community. After all, creditors don't normally like being the first one you try out... Being young and having recently moved you are basically a \"\"flight risk\"\". Meaning someone who is more likely to just pick up and move when the debt becomes too much. So, you have a couple options. The first is to simply wait. Keep going to work, keep living where you are, etc. As you establish yourself you become less of a risk. The second is to start incurring debt. Personally, I am not a fan of this one. Some people do well by getting a small credit card, using some portion of it each month and paying it off immediately. Others don't know how to control that very well and end up having a few months where they roll balances over etc which becomes a trap that costs them far more than before. If I were in your position, I'd likely do one of two things. Either buy the phone outright and sign up for a regular mobile plan OR take the cheaper phone for a couple years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61821e2e1d15c91e90c30e02f67fbbbb", "text": "I've been in the UK for 3.5 years, and I have the same problem: I can't get even a small loan from my bank; no one will give me a phone contract; it's a nightmare. I have 8 direct debits, I pay everything on time and I earn decent money, but still my credit is seen as no good. I have got a few ideas for you though: Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f0c31dbb9a77eded4cdec60a07d26db", "text": "You need to get yourself a credit card, and use it regularly and also repay on time. This will help increase your credit score. Hope you have a regular job which is bringing in money every month, but having just this isnt enough, get a credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b96ae9015f0cd88dd0ad3d5b544622b9", "text": "Do you have the option of paying cash for the phone? To answer your question though: Essentially, you have to use credit RESPONSIBLY. That doesn't mean go get a slew of loans and pay them off. As Ratish said, a credit card is a good start. I basically buy everything with a card and then pay it off every month when the bill comes out. I actually have two and I alternate but that's getting nitpicky. It should be noted that simply getting a card won't help your score. In fact, it may go down initially as the inquiry and new account opening may have a negative effect. The positive effect will happen as you develop good payment behavior over time. One big thing you can do, in your case, is always pay your mobile bill on time. Having a good payment history with them will go a long way to prove you are responsible.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "120cf9202bca8afdba204800dc6de075", "text": "\"Rather than trying to indirectly game your credit score, I would instead shop around and see if there are other lenders that will pre-qualify you with your credit the way it is today. BofA and other large banks can be very formulaic in how they qualify loans; a local bank or credit union may be more willing to bend the traditional \"\"rules\"\" and pre-qualify you. I'm thinking about using FHA. If you can put 20% down then a conventional mortgage will likely be cheaper than an FHA loan since FHA loans have mortgage insurance built-in while conventional mortgages typically don't require it if you borrow less than 80% of the house's value. I would shop around before jumping to an FHA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2915cb9b142bf04bbcd136953fe594a", "text": "Sounds like you are stuck. These are your options: increase limit Not going to happen. You said you don't qualify. You also won't convince them to let you access more borrowing power by arguing that you can't pay now. No responsible lender would take that bet. negotiate balance Unlikely. This sounds like mostly real debt, not fees. They generally won't write off real debt except if you are in default. They will only negotiate if they think you can't pay. Note that this will probably hurt your credit, as they will report that you didn't pay your debt. pay down balance This is your best and only real option. If you can't afford to pay down the balance you can't afford to borrow more. I am sorry for your situation; it is frustrating. I know how that feels. It is a textbook example of the risk associated with debt. Even if you plan to pay the balance every month, when the unexpected happens, you pay the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18127088510ed511e14029a376fff64e", "text": "A) The Credit Rating Agencies only look at the month-end totals that are on your credit card, as this is all they ever get from the issuing bank. So a higher usage frequency as described would not make any direct difference to your credit rating. B) The issuing bank will know if you use the credit with the higher frequency, but it probably has little effect on your limit. Typically, after two to three month, they reevaluate your credit limit, and it could go up considerably if you never overdrew (and at this time, it could indirectly positively affect your credit rating). You could consider calling the issuing bank after two month and try to explain the history a bit and get them to increase the limit, but that only makes sense if your credit score has recovered. Your business paperwork could go a long way to convince someone, if you do so well now. C) If your credit rating is still bad, you need to find out why. It should have normalized to a medium range with the bad historic issues dropped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f06cf5d6bdbc29866e0b2983fbd8b4a1", "text": "\"Any kind of credit contract such as a mobile phone contract (could be SIM only or with a handset) would also help increase your number of accounts and demonstrate a track record of responsible management and repayments. If you have a Pay As You Go phone at present consider a SIM only contract with the same network, and if your parents currently pay for your phone consider if it would be worth switching it into your own name. Also make sure that you are registered on the Electoral Role at your permanent address and have at least a minimum payment direct debit set up on your credit card (even though you state you intend to repay in full) to make sure you don't forget a payment as this will disproportionately affect your score when combined with young age and few other accounts. Lastly ensure that you have a decent amount of \"\"head room\"\" on your rolling credit accounts like credit cards and aren't using more than 80% of the credit available to you through your monthly spending, if necessary by asking for an increased limit from your company (and then not using it).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "deaa83b849c38055661efd74493c55d2", "text": "I would say you are typical. The way people are able to build their available credit, then subsequently build their average balances is buy building their credit score. According to FICO your credit score is made up as follows: Given that you had no history, and only new credit you are pretty much lacking in all areas. What the typical person does, is get a card, pay on it for 6 months and assuming good history will either get an automatic bump; or, they can request a credit limit increase. Credit score has nothing to do with wealth or income. So even if you had 100K in the bank you would likely still be facing the same issue. The bank that holds the money might make an exception. It is very easy to see how a college student can build to 2000 or more. They start out with a $200 balance to a department store and in about 6 months they get a real CC with a 500 balance and one to a second department store. Given at least a decent payment history, that limit could easily increase above 2500 and there could be more then one card open. Along the lines of what littleadv says, the companies even welcome some late payments. The fees are more lucrative and they can bump the interest rate. All is good as long as the payments are made. Getting students and children involved with credit cards is a goal of the industry. They can obtain an emotional attachment that goes beyond good business reasoning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "884869eb776691173df3f901fce8830c", "text": "\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b45f60932598a0048bdf60b0586a8de", "text": "An activity which can help improve your credit score and actually make you money is stoozing. It's a little complicated but can be beneficial to do. Using either a credit card which allows fee free money withdrawals from cashpoints or building up debt using your credit card gives you access to your credit amount. You then use a long term 0% balance transfer card to transfer the debt which you pay off at the minimum rate. It's 0% so no costs are associated except for the initial fee paid for the balance transfer amount. The money that would have been used to pay off the credit amount (or money withdrawn from a cashpoint) can then be deposited in a savings account so you are now earning interest on the credit balance. Continuing to make monthly minimum payments via direct debit will help improve your credit rating and the savings money will earn interest. (it is also available if you suddenly need to pay off the 0% card)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc389e7d5a1829c67a2d0419bff1ad0f", "text": "With new credit scores tend to be very volatile. It could be something as small as carrying a higher balance or credit inquiries. Like I mentioned, check Credit Karma to confirm nothing has changed. Also, see your inquiries. That may have impacted your score", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9fadccb388697eef8e9da6cb7fdfe97", "text": "I'm not sure what raising your credit limit would do to your score in the short term. I don't think it's a clear win, though. Your percent utilization will go down (more available credit for the same amount of debt) but your available credit will also go up, which may be a negative, since potentially you can default on more debt. If you're interested in monitoring your score, Credit Karma will let you do that for free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed6909b1d2486a0cd9e6aaf638528c16", "text": "\"For a newly registered business, you'll be using your \"\"personal\"\" credit score to get the credit. You will need to sign for the credit card personally so that if your business goes under, they still get paid. Your idea of opening a business card to increase your credit score is not a sound one. Business plastic might not show up on your personal credit history. While some issuers report business accounts on a consumer's personal credit history, others don't. This cuts both ways. Some entrepreneurs want business cards on their personal reports, believing those nice high limits and good payment histories will boost their scores. Other small business owners, especially those who keep high running balances, know that including that credit line could potentially lower their personal credit scores even if they pay off the cards in full every month. There is one instance in which the card will show up on your personal credit history: if you go into default. You're not entitled to a positive mark, \"\"but if you get a negative mark, it will go on your personal report,\"\" Frank says. And some further information related to evaluating a business for a credit card: If an issuer is evaluating you for a business card, the company should be asking about your business, says Frank. In addition, there \"\"should be something on the application that indicates it's for business use,\"\" he says. Bottom line: If it's a business card, expect that the issuer will want at least some information pertaining to your business. There is additional underwriting for small business cards, says Alfonso. In addition to personal salary and credit scores, business owners \"\"can share financials with us, and we evaluate the entire business financial background in order to give them larger lines,\"\" she says. Anticipate that the issuer will check your personal credit, too. \"\"The vast majority of business cards are based on a personal credit score,\"\" says Frank. In addition, many issuers ask entrepreneurs to personally guarantee the accounts. That means even if the businesses go bust, the owners promise to repay the debts. Source\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec99e72389a56d364362c3107958891b", "text": "My recommendation is to not ask for a credit increase, but just increase the utilization of one card if you have multiple cards, and decrease the utilization of the others, and continue paying off all cards in full each month. In a few months, you will likely be offered a credit increase by the card that is getting increased use. The card company that is getting the extra business knows that you are paying off big bills each month and keeping your account in good standing, and they will likely offer you a credit increase all by themselves because they want to keep your business. If no offer is forthcoming, you can call the card company and ask for a credit increase. If they refuse, tell them that you will be charging very little on the card in the future (or even canceling your card, though that will cause a hit on your credit score) because of their refusal, and switch your high volume to a different card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e691b6e7366ed7139f4b518953281dd1", "text": "\"First I would like to say, do not pay credit card companies in an attempt to improve your credit rating. In my opinion it's not worth the cash and not fair for the consumer. There are many great resources online that give advice on how to improve your credit score. You can even simulate what would happen to your score if you did \"\"this\"\". Credit Karma - will give you your TransUnion credit score for free and offers a simulation calculator. If you only have one credit card, I would start off by applying for another simply because $700 is such a small limit and to pay a $30 annual fee seems outrageous. Try applying with the bank where you hold your savings or checking account they are more likely to approve your application since they have a working relationship with you. All in all I would not go out of my way and spend money I would not have spent otherwise just to increase my credit score, to me this practice is counter intuitive. You are allowed a free credit report from each bureau, once annually, you can get this from www.annualcreditreport.com, this won't include your credit score but it will let you see what banks see when they run your credit report. In addition you should check it over for any errors or possible identity theft. If there are errors you need to file a claim with the credit agency IMMEDIATELY. (edit from JoeT - with 3 agencies to choose from, you can alternate during the year to pull a different report every 4 months. A couple, every 2.) Here are some resources you can read up on: Improve your FICO Credit Score Top 5 Credit Misconceptions 9 fast fixes for your credit scores\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17a03308d7c009459dca69589c8f4eb8", "text": "There is no catch. You've been a good customer and your bank wants to reward you for it. One of the ways you build credit is by having more credit available. So by increasing your credit limit, its lowering your credit utilization rate (one of the factors that go into your credit score) - which is a good thing. So your bank trusts you with more credit, which again is a good thing. You can also request a line of credit increase yourself without waiting for the bank to do so - but there's a 6 month wait between each increase, assuming you get one. I always ask every 6 months and have gotten approved each time, and it's helped my credit score tremendously.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9758baa2e8282051e22e60e24a3559e", "text": "\"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d44654282465ebd3ebad8d3665381e99", "text": "If #2 is how it really worked I would approve. In the real world, entities who have the money to purchase access have systems which are in a position to execute strategies which shave pennies of of people who want to make real trades. I want to sell for $61.15 and someone wants to buy for $61.10 and the HFT traders force both hands and make their money on that nickel in between us.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bb7f1ba9bb55f4663324f1c4ac05cfa5	Does money made by a company on selling its shares show up in Balance sheet	[ { "docid": "d0fb36029eb1131f806287710d316031", "text": "First: the question is irrelevant for purchases on exchange, mostly. Majority of sales on stock exchanges is between shareholders. If however you buy directly from the company (in a IPO, or direct share purchase program of some kind, like ESPP), then it does end up showing in the company account ledgers one way or another. It then become part of company's total assets, and the newly sold shares add to the equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4289ceb981b00debab6378001ff515e2", "text": "\"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level. The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, \"\"actually\"\" and \"\"imaginary\"\" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever. The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading \"\"issuance (retirement) of stock\"\" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is \"\"issuance\"\"; when a company buys back their shares, it's called \"\"retirement\"\", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the \"\"equity\"\" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called \"\"common stock\"\". If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant. While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the \"\"basic weighted average\"\" and \"\"diluted weighted average\"\" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company. It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "74025b05eba2366bf975acf56e3717e6", "text": "\"It depends on the definition of earnings. A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce \"\"earnings\"\" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred). It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1596afff2f3ee3401968378a590116e6", "text": "Somewhat. The balance sheet will include liabilities which as Michael Kjörling points out would tell you the totals for the debt which would often be loans or bonds depending on one's preferred terminology. However, if the company's loan was shorter than the length of the quarter, then it may not necessarily be reported is something to point out as the data is accurate for a specific point in time only. My suggestion is that if you have a particular company that you want to review that you take a look at the SEC filing in full which would have a better breakdown of everything in terms of assets, liabilities, etc. than the a summary page. http://investor.apple.com/ would be where you could find a link to the 10-Q that has a better breakdown though it does appear that Apple doesn't have any bonds outstanding. There are some companies that may have little debt due to being so profitable in their areas of business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b622bc6d4c5c0e320f76c82c2ef0411a", "text": "\"SEC filings do not contain this information, generally. You can find intangible assets on balance sheets, but not as detailed as writing down every asset separately, only aggregated at some level (may be as detailed as specifying \"\"patents\"\" as a separate line, although even that I wouldn't count on). Companies may hold different rights to different patents in different countries, patents are being granted and expired constantly, and unless this is a pharma industry or a startup - each single patent doesn't have a critical bearing on the company performance.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "030434531674e30800c6f5ed5d97f02c", "text": "\"There is a legal document called a \"\"Stock Purchase Agreement\"\" and it depends on who is the other party to the buyer in the Agreement. In almost all startups the sale goes through the company, so the company keeps the money. In your example, the company would be worth $10,000 \"\"Post-Money\"\" because the $1k got 10% of the Company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5924e2b6bf5ea265b7048bd0454db5", "text": "\"If a company earns $1 Million in net profit (let's say all cash, which is not entirely realistic), it can do one of three things with it: On the balance sheet - profits that have not been distributed show up as \"\"retained earnings\"\". When dividends are paid, Retained Earnings and cash are reduced. None of the other options change the fact that it is still \"\"profit\"\" - they all just affect the balance sheet, not the income statement: Note that when a company issues dividends, it reduces its per-share value since cash is leaving the door with nothing in return. In Apple's case, since a significant amount of its profit was earned in other countries (where it was not taxed by the US), it would pay a significant amount in US corporate tax by bringing it back to the US by investing it or paying dividends. They are betting that at some point, the US will change the rules to make it more favorable to \"\"repatriate\"\" the money and reduce their tax significantly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cf789155692e1686257b5c57e274203", "text": "It depends. If the investor bought newly-issued shares or treasury shares, the company gets the money. If the investor bought shares already held by the owner, the owner gets the money. A 100% owner can decide how to structure the sale. Yet, the investor may only be willing to buy shares if the funds increase the company's working capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69e4603c713071cd9e01609a98732949", "text": "Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89584495a2e30d49bc6cd4c558be05b6", "text": "Why? Balance sheet is balance sheet, why is it complicated? Bank shareholders get dividends in exactly the same way as any other company shareholders do: the company ends up with net profits, which the board of directors decides to distribute to shareholders based on certain amount per share. If at all. Not all the profits are distributed, and in fact - there are companies who don't distribute dividends at all. Apple, for example, hasn't ever distributed dividends until very very recently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7c3c50983b90a530bd4e87bf65bf070", "text": "Where can publicly traded profits go but to shareholders via dividends? They can be retained by the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cc6bb61f9c5b56558eef57ce1ed1a", "text": "\"You ask two questions - First - the market value can drop for two reasons (that I know), the company itself may have issues, and investors don't trust they'll be paid, or a general rise in interest rates. In the latter case, there's little to worry about, but for the former, well, that's your decision, you say \"\"the company is in trouble\"\" yet you believe they'll pay. Tough call. Second - yes, when a bond matures, the money appears in your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f94ab28cf420d279e87cabb6029f65c", "text": "In simplest terms, when a company creates new shares and sells them, it's true that existing shareholders now own a smaller percentage of the company. However, as the company is now more valuable (since it made money by selling the new shares), the real dollar value of the previous shares is unchanged. That said, the decision to issue new shares can be interpreted by investors as a signal of the company's strategy and thereby alter the market price; this may well affect the real dollar value of the previous shares. But the simple act of creating new shares does not alter the value in and of itself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5135a272a85115fd8dc1016cd7fe317", "text": "They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d2807c840985b9088a4bab68077ea99", "text": "\"I heard today while listening to an accounting podcast that a balance sheet... can be used to determine if a company has enough money to pay its employees. The \"\"money\"\" that you're looking at is specifically cash on the balance sheet. The cash flows document mentioned is just a more-finance-related document that explains how we ended at cash on the balance sheet. ...even looking for a job This is critical, that i don't believe many people look at when searching for a job. Using the ratios listed below can (and many others), one can determine if the business they are applying for will be around in the next five years. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one good)? My favorite example of a high cash company is Nintendo. Rolling at 570 Billion USD IN CASH ALONE is astonishing. Using the ratios we can see how well they are doing. Can someone provide me a pair of examples (one bad)? Tesla is a good example of the later on being cash poor. Walk me though how to understand such a document? *Note: This question is highly complex and will take months of reading to fully comprehend the components that make up the financial statements. I would recommend that this question be posted completely separate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b34732078e878961b77988a504a7cad3", "text": "I am probably not the most qualified person, but I have taken some managerial finance courses. If company B is still in tact, has its own documentation saying it's a company and all that, the only income company A would need to claim from B is that which B profited and the profits were given to A. I see the above scenario similar to owning an asset, like a bond, which pays you interest. If the companies are merged, most definitely but that probably wasn't your question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f49afe59c2066b628a48a29923719045", "text": "\"This isn't so much a legal issue, the prohibition on giving discounts was written into the merchant agreements that most of the major credit card companies enforced on businesses that accepted their credit cards. That is, until the recent Financial Reform Bill (2010) passed Congress. It changes everything. (The logic on this is a little convoluted, so read carefully) Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from requiring a minimum purchase amount to use a credit card. Meaning: That if merchants want to, they can now stop taking credit cards for a $4 latte. Credit card companies can no longer prohibit merchants from giving discounts for cash. Here is an article with a lot more detail: Financial Reform Bill Good News for Credit Card Holders Here is a link to the actual bill details and content: HR 4173 - Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Here is the relevant part: This subsection is supposed to take affect \"\"at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.\"\" In other words, July 21st, 2011.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f2a910db2eac962469bdfd29e7de201c	When filing taxes in Canada, in what cases does box 39 on the T4 get reported as half of box 38?	[ { "docid": "c356e65fae1f20d399d29664a93e6301", "text": "Here's the best explanation I found relating to why your T4 box 39 might not have an amount filled in, even when box 38 has one: Department of Finance – Explanatory Notes Relating to the Income Tax Act [...]. It's a long document, but here's the part I believe relevant, with my emphasis: Employee Stock Options ITA 110(1) [...] Paragraph 110(1)(d) is amended to include a requirement that the employee [...] exercise the employee’s rights under the stock option agreement and acquire the securities underlying the agreement in order for the deduction in computing taxable income to be available [...] ensures that only one deduction is available in respect of an employment benefit. In other words, if employee stock option rights are surrendered to an employer for cash or an in-kind payment, then (subject to new subsections 110(1.1) and (1.2)) the employer may deduct the payment but the employee cannot claim the stock option deduction. Conversely, where an employer issues securities pursuant to an employee’s exercise of stock options, the employer can not deduct an amount in respect of the issuance, but the employee may be eligible to claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d). Did you receive real shares based on your participation in the ESPP, or did you get a cash payment for the net value of shares you would have been issued under the plan? From what I can tell, if you opted for a cash payment (or if your plan only allows for such), then the part I emphasized comes into play. Essentially, if conditions were such that your employer could claim a deduction on their corporate income tax return for the compensation paid to you as part of the plan, then you are not also able to claim a similar deduction on your personal income tax return. The money received in that manner is effectively taxed in your hands the same as any bonus employment income would be; i.e. it isn't afforded tax treatment equivalent to capital gains income. Your employer and/or ESPP administrator are best able to confirm the conditions which led to no amount in your box 39, but at least based on above you can see there are legitimate cases where box 38 would have an amount while box 39 doesn't.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71149d0e8b8218abed36b82288989441", "text": "\"Apparently box 39 does not receive half of box 38 if \"\"The price of the share or unit is less than its fair market value when the agreement was made.\"\" - the last point in paragraph 110(1)(d): *http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/bsnss/tpcs/pyrll/bnfts/fnncl/scrty/stckpt03-eng.html#dspst The employee can claim a deduction under paragraph 110(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act if all of the following conditions are met:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5baeb8780d8466112dbb69e6084318a", "text": "Assuming you purchased shares that were granted at a discount under the ESPP the 50% exemption would not apply. It's pretty unusual to see a US parent company ESPP qualify for the 110(1)(d) exemption, as most US plans provide for a discount", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6f0f38a1e602eb0fac9930004d35f15a", "text": "According to the government website, the answer appears to be no in terms of personal income. However you may want to anyway to start creating RRSP contribution room as well as possibly qualify for GST/HST credit. If your business is registered you are going to be required to file a tax return for it (and if it is a sole proprietorship then you would be required to file a T1 regardless). When all is said and done, it seems that it's probably better to file rather than not file; even if you pay no income tax at least you are sure you won't receive a nasty letter from Revenue Canada in the future :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22", "text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b9ab1f95c481e326cd7c4f61ba760ec", "text": "I'm not familiar with Canadian taxes, but had your question been written about the United States, I'd advise you to at least consult for a couple of hours with an accountant. Taxes are complex, and the cost of making a mistake generally exceeds the cost of getting professional advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9574f0e2fb0fbf836e189b29db9332cd", "text": "\"If the IRS changes your return in any way (including math errors) - they send a letter explaining the change and the reasons for it. You should read that letter, it will answer your question (Usually its a CP12 notice). If you didn't receive it - you can call them and ask to resend it (they're unlikely to answer over the phone, but you can try asking). I'm confused by your using the word \"\"estimate\"\". Your tax return is not supposed to be estimate, it supposed to be precise. Why are you considering your tax return \"\"estimate\"\"? If your filed tax return shows refund of $X and you received $X+$180 - then as I said, a letter of explanation from the IRS is due. If you don't know what the refund amount on your return is and you're trying to \"\"estimate\"\" it now - you better get a copy of that return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d42df4b19921edac9589e2d0d8ad984a", "text": "\"The FTB, as any government agency, is understaffed and underpaid. Even if someone took a glance and it wasn't just an automated letter - consider the situation: you filed as a LLC and then amended to file as a partnership. Unless someone really pays attention - the obvious assumption would be that you had a limited partnership. Yes, you'll need to call them and work with them on fixing this. They do have all the statements you've attached. However, there's a lot of automation and very little attention to details when it comes to matching errors, so don't get surprised if no-one even looked at these statements. Next time your elected government officials talk about \"\"small government\"\" and \"\"cutting government expenses\"\" - you can remind yourself how it looks in action with this experience.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e65f6a428a57a6e3118afe397365a752", "text": "There are two parts in this 1042-S form. The income/dividends go into the Canada T5 form. There will be credit if 1042-S has held money already, so use T2209 to report too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a1b087d8f4cd8b95e057b73b76b3d8f", "text": "I have a very hard time believing you pay 60% of gross. Otherwise, I believe you're right in the way this works: Suppose you make $100k and pay 25% of that in taxes. 100,000 * .25 = 25,000 But if you spend $1,000 pretax, then it's as if you were paid $99,000 99,000 * .25 = $24,750 So the difference is $250. Which is the same as that $1,000 * .25.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2ea6d2ce4627b1b99ae7f191f1d016a", "text": "\"However this seems off because I would essentially be purposely filling out a form incorrectly. Note that the only part of the W-4 form that is required to be filled out and given to the employer is the small certificate at the bottom that you tear off. In this part, it only asks you for \"\"Total number of allowances you are claiming\"\". You don't have to fill out any of the worksheets in the other parts of the form, which actually ask for specific information. Since there are different allowed ways of computing the \"\"Total number of allowances you are claiming\"\", I doubt that any number you put there can be said to be \"\"incorrect\"\". I think that the best to use the IRS Withholding Calculator. If you use it, the calculator will probably tell you to claim a few more exemptions. And you don't have to feel bad about \"\"filling the form incorrectly\"\" if you follow the IRS calculator.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1be9d7231a61302958e09ca27c1c4fe", "text": "The Canada Revenue Agency describes in detail here what information businesses must generally include on their invoices so that GST/HST registrants can claim Input Tax Credits (ITCs) for the expenses. Quote: Sales invoices for GST/HST registrants You have to give customers who are GST/HST registrants specific information on the invoices, receipts, contracts, or other business papers that you use when you provide taxable goods and services. This information lets them support their claims for input tax credits (ITCs) or rebates for the GST/HST you charged. [...] The page quoted continues with a table describing what, specifically, needs to be on a sales invoice based on the total amount of the invoice; the requirements differ for: total sale under $30, total sale between $30 to $149.99, and total sale $150 or more. For the total sale under $30 category, the only things a sales invoice must contain to support an ITC claim are (1) the provider's business name, (2) the invoice date, and (3) the total amount paid/payable. i.e. When the total sale is under $30, there is no requirement for any GST/HST amount to be indicated separately, nor for a business number to be present on the invoice. Hence, IMHO (and I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer), if your Uber rides are for $30 or less, then you shouldn't expect a GST/HST number anyway, and a simple invoice as described should be enough for you to claim your ITCs. Whether or not the provider is registered in fact for GST/HST is beside the point. For amounts over $30, you need a bit more. While the page above specifies that the provider's business number should be included beginning with the next level of total sales, there are exceptions to those rules described at another page mentioned, Exceptions to invoice requirements, that specifically apply to the taxi/limousine case. Quote: Exceptions to invoice requirements GST/HST registrants are required to keep the necessary documentation to support their claim for ITCs and rebates. In certain circumstances the documentation requirements have been reduced. [...] For taxi or limousine fares your books and records must show: So at a minimum, for fare in excess of $30 total, you should ask the driver to note either (a) the amount of GST/HST charged, or (b) a statement that the fare includes GST/HST. The driver's business number need not be specified. Consequently, if your receipt for a ride in excess of $30 does not contain any such additional information with respect to GST/HST, then I would expect the receipt does not satisfy the CRA's requirements for supporting your ITC claim. i.e. Keep your individual rides under $30 each, or else get a better receipt from the driver when it is above that amount. p.s. It should go without saying, but your rides, of course, must be considered reasonable business expenses in order to qualify for GST/HST ITCs for your business. Receipts for rides of a personal nature are not eligible, so be sure to maintain proper records as to the business purpose and destination for each ride receipt so claimed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "801eff76d5568ed1ea204238079f9061", "text": "In Canada, the majority of your taxes are remitted by the employer on your behalf after the employer deducts the calculated amount from your pay. Then when you file your income tax return you pay (or get reimbursed) the difference stemming from your particular social situation. Note that this is optional. The employer has to pay its own part of some deductions, but the employee can opt out from getting the standard amount of income tax deducted at source. It is his responsibility alone to pay for his taxes. So in this context, it's entirely possible to advertise an approximate net salary. Most of the accounting over here is done by way of accounting software, and those that support payroll go through a testing and acceptance phase for each revision to the tax tables, so the amount calculated is usually pretty exact (I got reimbursed 120$ last year).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a89ab2d6bd9760664b9f5741aabdd05f", "text": "I know nothing about this, but found this link which suggests for H&R Block specifically: I kept searching and I found the section. It's at the end in the Credits section under 'other backup withholding'. Hopefully this helps someone else in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "311f83af312064c4e084dd5e1a1ab6d7", "text": "\"You are not interpreting the table correctly. The $20K \"\"base rate\"\" that you think should have been eliminated is in fact the total tax for the whole bracket. You only dipped partially into the bracket, and the $3K reduction accounts for that. Look at the table again: What it means is that if you earn $100K, you will pay $6897.50 + 25% of (100000-50400) = $12400. If you earn $140000, you'll pay $26835 + (140000-130150) * 0.28 = $2758. So why the difference between $26835 and $6897.50? That's exactly 25% of $79500, which is the difference between $130150 and $50400 - the whole value of the bracket.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcebef1932d0d48451f1bb190ed3299a", "text": "http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f5498.pdf see the instructions for box 2, it's used to report incoming rollover/transfers. The receiving broker should be acknowledging the transfer with the 5498. If you read the PDF carefully, any incoming money is reported this way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fa0bd229711b0f4e8b6eea03667ce6f", "text": "Overcontributions made after the calendar year are not usually a problem. This is because while contributions made in Jan and Feb can be counted towards the previous year, they do not have to be. This appears to be what has happened in your case. If you had an RRSP limit of $18,000 for 2015, and in Jan 2016 you contributed $22,000 to your RRSP, then it is perfectly legal to claim $18,000 of that in 2015 and $4000 in 2016. The extra $4000 is never counted against your 2015 limit and so is not an overcontribution. If your 2016 limit is going to be less than $4000 then you will eventually have an overcontribution problem in 2016, and if you think that's likely you should sort this out now. But for most people that's pretty unlikely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c370c590c86022ee969d685d5a6b8f7", "text": "No. $188.23 has $11.76 tax = $199.99 $188.24 has $11.77 tax - $200.01 So, unless the based price contained the half cent for $188.235, the register would never show $200.00 even. How does the receipt to customer look?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a25f00287d67c4d3a6cc8ea8f85fb864	Having trouble with APR calculation	[ { "docid": "452f27da8e2c009b017c0b881ec4cf77", "text": "I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4162c5533d3365d1aae1ce002dad60", "text": "Check your calculation of A**. I was able to duplicate their calculations using excel. Make you sure have accounted for all the terms, it can be easy to be one off. They are making a guess at the interest rate which will be wrong, then they are adjusting it to see how wrong it is, then making another adjustment. They will repeat until they see no movement in the guesses.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1f44a13c0f9aa05b0b154df9f73321d6", "text": "The formula you need is: M = (r * PV) / (1 - ((1+r)^(-n))) M = monthly payment ($350) r = interest per period (7.56% / 12) = 0.63% n = number of periods (36 months) PV = present value, or here, your max loan amount given M Therefore: $350 = (0.63% * PV) / (1 - ((1+0.63%)^(-36))) The denominator on the right ends up equal to ~ 0.2025 when you do the math in your calculator. Carry that over to the by multiplying both sides of the equation by 0.2025 This results in $70.82 = 0.63% * PV Divide $70.82 by 0.63% to get PV = $11,242 (roughly). Hope this helps explain it algebraically!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "228a966b42e8fb98215b502c9cd1a61a", "text": "Interest is calculated daily. Doing the math: Between 6-17 and 7-25 are 38 days, 200.29 / 38 = 5.27 interest per day. Between 7-25 and 8-17 are 23 days. 120.02 / 23 = 5.22 interest per day. The minimal difference is because the principal has already gone down a little bit. So you should expect ~5.20 x number of days for the next interest number coming up; slowly decreasing as the remaining principal debt decreases. Note that this is equivalent of an annual interest rate of over 20 %, which is beyond acceptable. In the current economy, this is ridiculously high. I recommend trying to get a refinancing with another provider; you should be able to get it for a third of that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f510cfae2458ebd9e73e22990b76c393", "text": "This is a clear example of annuities, where you are trying to find Net Present Value (NPV). To find a quick solution you can use the excel function (=NPV). Solving it without excel is slightly more complicated. You have to use the annuities formula: (Payment/rate) * (1 - 1/(1+r)^n ) This formula can be written in many different ways, this is one of the simplest. So how do we translate that to your problem? For the first option: -5000/0.04 * (1 - 1/(1.04^2 ) = -9430.47 If you haven't made this years 5000 payment you have to subtract this years 5000, so option 1 would equal -14430,47. Option 2 is similar -2000/0.04 (1 - 1/(1.04^10 ) = -16221.79 WAIT! You also have to subtract the initial cost so option 2 is -36221.79 So in essence, option 1 is better (but you will have to buy a machine sooner or later). Part 2 (discount rate = 12%) is for you to understand the importance of high rates in long periods of time (like option 2's 10 years) EDIT: For clearer formulas. Also made a mistake calculating option 2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca30e776472a9f4a206f93e759e22900", "text": "In this case, it looks like the interest is simply the nominal daily interest rate times number of days in the period. From that you can use a spreadsheet to calculate the total payment by trial and error. With the different number of days in each period, any formula would be very complicated. In the more usual case where the interest charge for each period is the same, the formula is: m=Pr^n(r-1)/(r^n-1) where * is multiplication ^ is exponentiation / is division (Sorry, don't know if there's a way to show formulas cleanly on here) P=original principle r=growth factor per payment period, i.e. interest rate + 100% divided by 100, e.g. 1% -> 1.01 n=number of payments Note the growth factor above is per period, so if you have monthly payments, it's the rate per month. The last payment may be different because of rounding errors, unequal number of days per period, or other technicalities. Using that formula here won't give the right answer because of the unequal periods, but it should be close. Let's see: r=0.7% times an average of 28.8 days per period gives 20.16% + 1 = 1.2016. n=5 P=500 m=5001.2016^5(1.2016-1)/(1.2016^5-1) =167.78 Further off than I expected, but ballpark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acbff6d144a04d785c94ea5caaf1cfd1", "text": "The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value. (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation. As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate. (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eaa41ceaeab34d349a7792b63eb3d04d", "text": "Question is, what is this number 0.01140924 13.69/12=0.01140924 In addition, how does one come out with the EIR as 13.69% pa? When calculating payments, PV = 9800, N=36 (months), PMT=333.47, results in a rate of 1.140924% per period, and rate of 13.69%/yr. No idea how they claim 7.5% In Excel, type =RATE(36,333.47,-9800,0,0) And you will get 1.141% as the result. 36 = #payments, 333.47 = payment per period, -9800 is the principal (negative, remember this) And the zeros are to say the payments are month end, second zero is the guess. Edit - I saw the loan is from a Singapore bank. It appears they have different rules on the rates they quote. As quid's answer showed the math, here's the bank's offer page - The EIR is the rate that we, not just US, but most board members, are used to. I thought I'd offer an example using a 30 year mortgage. Yo can see above, a 6% fixed rate somehow morphs into a 3.86% AR. No offense to the Singapore bankers, but I see little value in this number. What surprises me most, is that I've not seen this before. What's baffling is when I change a 15yr term the AP drops to less than half. It's still a 6% loan and there's nothing about it that's 2 percent-ish, in my opinion. Now we know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8afd7222d68da2274599759df354008", "text": "ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation. This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts. So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause. The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances. It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year. While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine. It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go. Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to. This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a69573b10bc69c804febd5912f716dc", "text": "\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7907f479ca9dea88aa294511fa079ce", "text": "The equation for the payment is This board does not support Latex (the number formatting code) so the above is an image, the code is M is the payment calculated, n is the number of months or periods to pay off, and i is the rate per period. You can see that with i appearing 3 times in this equation, it's not possible to isolate to the form i=.... so a calculator will 'guess,' and use, say, 10%. It then raises or lowers the rate until the result is within the calculator's tolerance. I've observed that unlike other calculations, when you hit the button to calculate, a noticeable time lag occurs. I hope I haven't read too much into your question, it seemed to me this was what you asked.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f25fc1100906dad3d175ba50a5c3a5c", "text": "TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7", "text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a33b7e79c798f5df57f893117b965db2", "text": "Thanks it is problem for class and I don't want to give the problem I just want to understand how to actually do it and the book hasn't been much help. Only additional information I can provide is In Inventory – 15 days Accounts Receivable outstanding – 35 days Vendor credit – 40 days Operating Cycle – 50 days", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c844bfce550445f3758e75c9421f48ad", "text": "If the APR is an effective rate. If the APR is a nominal rate compounded monthly, first convert it to an effective rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c6b9eb7fd9126ff2aad03854b5e0e6e", "text": "If your APR is quoted as nominal rate compounded monthly, the APR is 108.6 %. Here is the calculation, (done in Mathematica ). The sum of the discounted future payments (p) are set equal to the present value (pv) of the loan, and solved for the periodic interest rate (r). Details of the effective interest rate calculation can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_interest_rate#Calculation", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c5f7796e8581ad364cb3aa2a495ea88", "text": "\"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dafd868a808e69caeca3bdd32d4100c3	After consulting HR Block, are you actually obligated to file your taxes with them, if they've found ways to save you money?	[ { "docid": "cfbe958f8ed0a8af91bbfb143871a2cb", "text": "The obligation is contractual, so you need to read the contract to answer your question. However, since you paid for the service provided, I see no way they can force you buy any other service from them. They cannot file your tax returns without your explicit consent (on a form dedicated to that, dated and having the numbers matching the return filed - not something you can sign before the actual return is ready). Worst case they can claim you owe them more money, but since you paid for the services provided, I can't see how they can have that stand in court as well. Bottom line - even if the contract has such an obligation, I cannot see how it can be enforced. As to the mistake they noted... I wouldn't rely on H&R Block advice in any matter. Very likely, the person you were talking to was not even licensed to provide tax advice. You're lucky if the person has passed CRTP exams (in California they're legally required), but I seriously doubt their clerks are EAs or CPAs (the only designations other than a lawyer legally allowed to provide tax advice). Tax preparers (CRTPs included) are only allowed to provide advice pertaining to the preparation of the tax return they're currently engaged to prepare. Claiming income is sourced or not sourced in NY is borderline, IMHO. If they got it wrong (and to me it sounds as they did) you can sue them for damages. If your situation is tricky and it is too late to get an appointment with a proper adviser - file an extension (form 4868) and deal with it after the April busy season.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7d128909830fd51e9b2d000fcd9108e", "text": "\"This is a legal issue, or possibly an ethical issue, and not really a finance issue. And I am not a lawyer. But for what it's worth: Did you sign a written contract with H&R Block? If so, then the terms of that contract would govern. If you signed a contract saying that you agree to file your taxes through them if they meet such-and-such conditions, and they met these conditions, then you are legally obligated. If there was no written contract, then I think any court would take the conversation between you and H&R Block as an oral contract. If H&R Block said, basically, \"\"Okay, we'll calculate what we think your taxes are, and if we come up with something better than what you had before, then you agree to file your taxes through us\"\", and you said \"\"Oh, okay\"\", then that's an oral contract. You agreed to their conditions. Legally, oral contracts are just as binding as written contracts. The only difference is that it is difficult to prove exactly what was said. If you really did agree to these conditions, I suppose you could lie and say you didn't and then try to convince a court that they are the ones lying. Obvious ethical problems there. There are also implied contracts. If HRB's advertising or paperwork says that you're agreeing to file through them if they meet the conditions, I thing that a court would likely rule that you implicitly agreed to their terms by doing the review. In any case, when you go to some place like HRB mostly what you are paying for is their knowledge and expertise. So if they give you the benefit of their expertise -- they tell you how to reduce your taxes -- and then you don't pay them, that seems rather unethical to me. The situation is muddied by the fact that you paid $100 for the review. Is that paying for the basic information, the \"\"tax tip\"\", and paying for them to file is then a contract for additional work? Under some circumstances I'd say yes, that's additional work and thus an additional contract, so in the absence of a contract obligating me, I don't have to do that. The catch in this case is that at that point they must have already pretty much taken all your information and filled out all the forms. All that's left is to press the \"\"send\"\" button and submit the return, right?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4a4af29e563aa15daf97b16eebf08a5", "text": "It sounds like they want to enter you into a contract in which they are allowed to charge a flat fee for filing contingent on money saving results from a tax review service, paid in full. Like those who answered before I have no legal experience. IRS Circular 230 defines the ethics for tax practitioners and the definition of a tax practitioner is broad enough (effective Aug 2011) to include those who are not EAs, CTRPs, CPAs as long as the person is compensated to prepare or assist in a substantial part of the preparation of a document pertaining to a taxpayer's liability for submission to the IRS. Section 10.27 Fees: (b)(2)A practitioner may charge a contingent fee for services rendered in connection with the Service’s examination of, or challenge to — (i) An original tax return Paragraph c defines what a contingent fee is basically a fee that depends on the specific result attained, in this case saving you money. In the section above 'Service's examination' is an audit in plain speak. If your 2013 return has not been submitted and you have not received a written notice for examination, H&R block can not charge a contingent fee, period. Furthermore, H&R Block cannot hold your tax documents, upon your request, they must return all original tax documents like W2s and 1099s ( they don't have to return the tax forms an employee prepared). Like I said above, I'm not a lawyer, unless I missed a key detail, I don't believe they were permitted to charge you a filing fee contingent on saving you money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b6a35f1951cf41e56a1603955d3ac58", "text": "As I have worked for H&R Block I know for a fact that they record all your activity with them for future reference. If it is their opinion that you are obligated to use their service if you use some other service then this, most likely, will affect your future dealings with them. So, ask yourself this question: is reducing their income from you this year worth never being able to deal with them again in future years? The answer to that will give you the answer to your question.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c295f6219f707bffbc845d07fe07b2d1", "text": "I few years ago my company in the Washington DC area allowed employees to contribute their own pre-tax funds. The system at the time wasn't sophisticated enough to prevent what you are suggesting. The money each month was put on a special credit card that could only be used at certain types of locations. You could load it onto the Metro smart trip card, and use it for many months. Many people did this, even though the IRS says you shouldn't. But eventually the program for the federal employees changed, their employer provided funds were put directly onto their Smart Trip card. In fact there were two buckets on the card: one to pay for commuting, and the other to pay for parking. There was no way to transfer money between buckets. The first day of the new month all the excess funds were automatically removed from the card;and the new funds were put onto the card. If your employer has a similar program it may work the same way. HR will know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a90eba7df1e05c2d0b73a98ba3ababf1", "text": "Nope pay the employer back the due does not involve any tax. Just keep a record of the transaction so that its available as reference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c603167c675f3637dff7e128e8c4512", "text": "No. An employer is legally obliged to deduct taxes from your pay cheque and send them to the IRS. The only way round that is to either provide evidence of deductions that would reduce your tax bill to nothing, or to become self-employed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b0ba3e5841488f99a591f1984b9dc7", "text": "\"Your question does not say this explicitly, but I assume that you were once a W-2 employee. Each paycheck a certain amount was withheld from your check to pay income, social security, and medicare taxes. Just because you did not receive that amount of money earned does not mean it was immediately sent to the IRS. While I am not all that savvy on payroll procedures, I recall an article that indicated some companies only send in withheld taxes every quarter, much like you are doing now. They get a short term interest free loan. For example taxes withheld by a w-2 employee in the later months of the year may not be provided to the IRS until 15 January of the next year. You are correct in assuming that if you make 100K as a W-2 you will probably pay less in taxes than someone who is 100K self employed with 5K in expenses. However there are many factors. Provided you properly fill out a 1040ES, and pay the correct amount of quarterly payments, you will almost never owe taxes. In fact my experience has been the forms will probably allow you to receive a refund. Tax laws can change and one thing the form did not include last year was the .9% Medicare surcharge for high income earners catching some by surprise. As far as what you pay into is indicative of the games the politicians play. It all just goes into a big old bucket of money, and more is spent by congress than what is in the bucket. The notion of a \"\"social security lockbox\"\" is pure politics/fantasy as well as the notion of medicare and social security taxes. The latter were created to make the actual income tax rate more palatable. I'd recommend getting your taxes done as early as possible come 1 January 2017. While you may not have all the needed info, you could firm up an estimate by 15 Jan and modify the amount for your last estimated payment. Complete the taxes when all stuff comes in and even if you owe an amount you have time to save for anything additional. Keep in mind, between 1 Jan 17 and 15 Apr 17 you will earn and presumably save money to use towards taxes. You can always \"\"rob\"\" from that money to pay any owed tax for 2016 and make it up later. All that is to say you will be golden because you are showing concern and planning. When you hear horror stories of IRS dealings it is most often that people spent the money that should have been sent to the IRS.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7b3c9eee55e4e1aca9b47f730125171", "text": "Your employer pays the expected (but estimated) taxes for you. So the chances are you don't own more; but that might be different if you have other sources of income that he doesn't know about (interest on savings or a side-job or whatever). Also, you could have deductions that reduce the taxes you owe, which he again doesn't know, so you overpay. If you don't file, you don't get them back. Most tax software companies offer free usage of their tool for standard filings, and you can use it to find out your tax situation, and then buy the tool only when you want to file. If you use one of those, you can type in all your data, and depending on the result, decide to buy it and file right away. Note that if it turns out you owe taxes, you must file (and pay), but of course you can do it manually instead of buying the tool. If it turns out you get money back, it is your decision to file - you probably don't care for a small amount, but if you get 1000 $ back, you might want to file - again, buying the software of doing it manually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "071f7252ad58078526431800146394df", "text": "\"When you say \"\"set aside,\"\" you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "653e490ace6c1b315324cea013d7d9ef", "text": "Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06b31bbfb3f117793ed92c8c79c0c91d", "text": "You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58fd1222e8565395bee7290f7a71a3e3", "text": "\"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef3c158a705519262993c7d13c839988", "text": "\"Besides money and time lost, it is pretty clear that most tax advisors are not well versed in non-resident taxes. It seems that their main clients are either US residents or H1B workers (who are required to file as residents). I share your pain on this one. In fact, even for H1B/green card holders or Americans with income/property abroad vast majority of advisers will make mistakes (which may become quite costly). IRS licensing exams for EA/RTRP do not include a single question on non-resident taxation or potential issues, let alone handling treaties. Same goes for the AICPA unified CPA exam (the REG portion of which, in part, deals with taxes). I'm familiar with the recent versions of both exams and I am very disappointed and frustrated by that lack of knowledge requirement in such a crucial area (I am not a licensed tax preparer now though). That said, the issue is very complicated. I went through several advisers until I found the one I can trust to know her stuff, and while at it happened to learn quite a lot about the US tax code (which doesn't make me sleep any better by the least). It is my understanding that preparing a US tax return for a foreign person without a mistake is impossible, but the question is how big is the mistake you're going to make. I had returns prepared by solo working advisers where I found mistakes as ridiculous as arithmetic calculation errors (fired after two seasons), and by big-4 firms where I found mistakes that cost me quite a lot (although by the time I figured that they cost me significant amounts, it was too late to sue or change; fired after 2 seasons as well). As you can see, it is relevant to me as well, and I do not do my own tax returns. I usually ask for the conservative interpretations from my adviser, IRS is very aggressive on enforcement and the penalties, especially on foreigners are draconian (I do not know if it ever went through a judicial review, as I believe some of these penalties are unconstitutional under the 8th amendment, but that's my personal opinion). Bottom line - its hard to find a decent tax adviser, and that's why the good ones are expensive. You get what you pay for. How do I go about locating a CPA/EA who is well versed in non-resident taxes located in the Los Angeles area (Orange County area is not too far away either) These professionals are usually active in large metropolitan areas with a lot of foreigners. You should be able to find decent professionals in LA/OC, SF Bay, Seattle, New York, Boston, and other cities and metropolises attracting foreigners. Also, look for those working in the area of a major university. Specific points: If I find none, can I work with a quaified person who lives in a different state and have him file my taxes on my behalf (electronically or via scans going back and forth) Yes. But that person my have a problem representing you in California (in case you're audited), unless he's an EA (licensed by the Federal government, can practice everywhere) or is licensed as a CPA or Attorney by the State of California. Is there a central registry of such quaified people I can view (preferably with reviews) - akin to \"\"yellow pages\"\" IRS is planning on opening one some time this year, but until then - not really. There are some commercial sites claiming to have that, but they're using the FOIA access to the IRS and states' listings, and may not have updated information. They definitely don't have updated license statuses (or any license statuses) or language/experience information. Wouldn't trust them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90d0f60baf23f68e50157d52c6ab539b", "text": "\"I would advise against \"\"pencil and paper\"\" approach for the following reasons: You should e-file instead of paper filing. Although the IRS provides an option of \"\"Fillable Forms\"\", there's no additional benefit there. Software ensures correctness of the calculations. It is easy to make math errors, lookup the wrong table It is easy to forget to fill a line or to click a checkbox (one particular checkbox on Schedule B cost many people thousands of dollars). Software ask you questions in a \"\"interview\"\" manner, and makes it harder to miss. Software can provide soft copies that you can retrieve later or reuse for amendments and carry-overs to the next year, making the task next time easier and quicker. You may not always know about all the available deductions and credits. Instead of researching the tax changes every year, just flow with the interview process of the software, and they'll suggest what may be available for you (lifetime learners credit? Who knows). Software provides some kind of liability protection (for example, if there's something wrong because the software had a bug - you can have them fix it for you and pay your penalties, if any). It's free. So why not use it? As to professional help later in life - depending on your needs. I'm fully capable of filling my own tax returns, for example, but I prefer to have a professional do it since I'm not always aware about all the intricacies of taxation of my transactions and prefer to have a professional counsel (who also provides some liability coverage if she counsels me wrong...). Some things may become very complex and many people are not aware of that (I've shared the things I learned here on this forum, but there are many things I'm not aware of and the tax professional should know).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdad64d50df808b8edbacef9b38b26c0", "text": "There's no reason why you couldn't have your work withhold the money for you, but you have to keep a close eye on it an file paperwork causing extra work for yourself and the payroll department. You also have that money withheld weekly instead of keeping access to the money until the end of the quarter if you paid directly to the treasury.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b2a62111d39b385d9ff8859503e9856", "text": "\"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85794d485be3d23157e21a9378a3e00f", "text": "To start with, I should mention that many tax preparation companies will give you any number of free consultations on tax issues — they will only charge you if you use their services to file a tax form, such as an amended return. I know that H&R Block has international tax specialists who are familiar with the issues facing F-1 students, so they might be the right people to talk about your specific situation. According to TurboTax support, you should prepare a completely new 1040NR, then submit that with a 1040X. GWU’s tax department says you can submit late 8843, so you should probably do that if you need to claim non-resident status for tax purposes.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
385f6b642aa06dfa4b1b0859e06b2901	What does it mean when the broker does not have enough shares to short?	[ { "docid": "b1fb0823ce32c596a1f3590d7c2e7c0c", "text": "For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "872fe1a450729affa322046c9784500f", "text": "You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6507e8f241b4987bd91346cf5ee8cd93", "text": "\"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b33e6fb5f82ac062270bcef7e605f84", "text": "When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a03270bbdbedf537c5acd5a60962d3e8", "text": "When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98e3bfb692726eb17aedb4ba794c9489", "text": "In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a87a785ece5786dd7c3b3761d25d5e96", "text": "\"And what exactly do I profit from the short? I understand it is the difference in the value of the stock. So if my initial investment was $4000 (200 * $20) and I bought it at $3800 (200 * $19) I profit from the difference, which is $200. Do I also receive back the extra $2000 I gave the bank to perform the trade? Either this is extremely poorly worded or you misunderstand the mechanics of a short position. When you open a short position, your are expecting that the stock will decline from here. In a short position you are borrowing shares you don't own and selling them. If the price goes down you get to buy the same shares back for less money and return them to the person you borrowed from. Your profit is the delta between the original sell price and the new lower buy price (less commissions and fees/interest). Opening and closing a short position is two trades, a sell then a buy. Just like a long trade there is no maximum holding period. If you place your order to sell (short) 200 shares at $19, your initial investment is $3,800. In order to open your $3,800 short position your broker may require your account to have at least $5,700 (according to the 1.5 ratio in your question). It's not advisable to open a short position this close to the ratio requirement. Most brokers require a buffer in your account in case the stock goes up, because in a short trade if the stock goes up you're losing money. If the stock goes up such that you've exhausted your buffer you'll receive what's known as a \"\"margin call\"\" where your broker either requires you to wire in more money or sell part or all of your position at a loss to avoid further losses. And remember, you may be charged interest on the value of the shares you're borrowing. When you hold a position long your maximum loss is the money you put in; a position can only fall to zero (though you may owe interest or other fees if you're trading on margin). When you hold a position short your maximum loss is unlimited; there's no limit to how high the value of something can go. There are less risky ways to make short trades by using put options, but you should ensure that you have a firm grasp on what's happening before you use real money. The timing of the trades and execution of the trades is no different than when you take a plain vanilla long position. You place your order, either market or limit or whatever, and it executes when your trade criteria occurs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b487e77599706db5c5f4e48d10e1053", "text": "Overvalued does not mean an opportunity to short. As long as a company's earnings are decent and there are limited other opportunities in the market, a stock would stay overvalued. its just that future returns on the stock might be limited. For shorting you need an expected trigger. Say you expect an overvalued company's earnings to decline or significantly miss expectations. This would be a candidate for shorting..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d0a8c9d8471a51c859d2375e59ba45f", "text": "\"> It just has to finish below the strike price of the short (which can be higher than the stock's current price). You're talking about a put option. That's one \"\"short\"\" strategy, but it's not shorting a stock, so the terminology is a little jumbled. There are reasons to not do straight options, because they can be quite risky, and you have to get the time frame correct.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf4dc0484ecb27f88bbc32a09a7fa536", "text": "When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fff007ae6a97c5126436e7624320dc4a", "text": "why can't I just use the same trick with my own shares to make money on the way down? Because if you sell shares out of your own portfolio, by definition, you are not selling short at all. If you sell something you own (and deliver it) - then there is no short involved. A short is defined as a net negative position - i.e. you sell shares you do not have. Selling shares you own is selling shares you own - no short involved. You must borrow the shares for a short because in the stock market, you must DELIVER. You can not deliver shares you do not own. The stock market does not work on promises - the person who bought the shares expects ownership of them with all rights that gives them. So you borrow them to deliver them, then return them when you buy them back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3123290e32d907c6d91f25b639be154", "text": "Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted. This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public. Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock. The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012. This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG. For naked short selling additional information is tracked. If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver. No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon. A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting. When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell. This will result in a large amount of naked short selling. When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ). The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period. The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered. Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist. For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period. This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "962ea288290efde34f5522ca7d5171a9", "text": "Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02d2b13e35b38e12d934800189817837", "text": "\"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "485023b813893e67c05daaa3fd16dd2d", "text": "For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6aca9601d01cbbd5b9b2b273044f9b02", "text": "You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
73b3883819fb1279d0c5610d8cea4c5e	Why are real-term bond yields systematically declining, and what does it mean for investors?	[ { "docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0", "text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "055049ff07087e73c9e065bffc2b48a0", "text": "\"On a longer time scale, the plot thickens: It almost looks random. A large drop in real rates in the mid-70s, a massive spike in the early 80s, followed by a slow multi-decade decline. The chaos doesn't seem to be due to interest rates. They steadily climbed and steadily fell: All that's left is inflation: First, real rates should be expected to pay a moderate rate, so nominal rates will usually be higher than inflation. However, interest rates are very stable over long time periods while inflation is not. Economists call this type of phenomenon \"\"sticky pricing\"\", where the price, interest rates in this case, do not change much despite the realities surrounding them. But the story is a little more complicated. In the early 1970s, Nixon had an election to win and tried to lessen the impacts of recession by increasing gov't spending, not raising taxes, and financing through the central bank, causing inflation. The strategy failed, but he was reelected anyways. This set the precedent for the hyperinflation of the 1970s that ended abruptly by Reagan at the beginning of his first term in the early 1980s. Again, interest rates remained sticky, so real rates spiked. Now, the world is not growing, almost stagnating. Demand for equity is somewhat above average, but because corporate income is decelerating, and the developed world's population is aging, demand for investment income is skyrocketing. As demand rises, so does the price, which for an investor is a form of inverse of the interest rate. Future demand is probably best answered by forecasters, and the monetarist over and undertones still dominating the Federal Reserve show that they have finally learned after 100 years that inflation is best kept \"\"low and stable\"\": But what happens if growth in the US suddenly spikes, inflation rises, and the Federal Reserve must sell all of the long term assets it has bet so heavily on quickly while interest rates rise? Inflation may not be intended, but it is not impossible.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ccaa2d226cb5adbec4f42d377dedfa7a", "text": "Yes, bond funds are marked to market, so they will decline as the composition of their holdings will. Households actually have unimpressive relative levels of credit to equity holdings. The reason why is because there is little return on credit, making it irrational to hold any amount greater than to fund future liquidity needs, risk adjusted and time discounted. The vast majority of credit is held by insurance companies. Pension funds have large stakes as well. Banks hold even fewer bonds since they try to sell them as soon as they've made them. Insurance companies are forced to hold a large percentage of their floats in credit then preferred equity. While this dulls their returns, it's not a large problem for them because they typically hold bonds until maturity. Only the ones who misprice the risk of insurance will have to sell at unfavorable prices. Being able to predict interest rates thus bond prices accurately would make one the best bond manager in the world. While it does look like inflation will rise again soon just as it has during every other US expansion, can it be assured when commodity prices are high in real terms and look like they may be in a collapse? The banking industry would have to produce credit at a much higher rate to counter the deflation of all physical goods. Households typically shun assets at low prices to pursue others at high prices, so their holdings of bonds ETFs should be expected to decline during a bond collapse. If insurance companies find it less costly to hold ETFs then they will contribute to an increase in bond ETF supply.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebe6ac0b79f9cec2027e75b7e1e713e5", "text": "You’ve really got three or four questions going here… and it’s clear that a gap in understanding one component of how bonds work (pricing) is having a ripple effect across the other facets of your question. The reality is that everybody’s answers so far touch on various pieces of your general question, but maybe I can help by integrating. So, let’s start by nailing down what your actual questions are: 1. Why do mortgage rates (tend to) increase when the published treasury bond rate increases? I’m going to come back to this, because it requires a lot of building blocks. 2. What’s the math behind a bond yield increasing (price falling?) This gets complicated, fast. Especially when you start talking about selling the bond in the middle of its time period. Many people that trade in bonds use financial calculators, Excel, or pre-calculated tables to simplify or even just approximate the value of a bond. But here’s a simple example that shows the math. Let’s say we’ve got a bond that is issued by… Dell for $10,000. The company will pay it back in 5 years, and it is offering an 8% rate. Interest payments will only be paid annually. Remember that the amount Dell has promised to pay in interest is fixed for the life of the bond, and is called the ‘coupon’ rate. We can think about the way the payouts will be paid in the following table: As I’m sure you know, the value of a bond (its yield) comes from two sources: the interest payments, and the return of the principal. But, if you as an investor paid $14,000 for this bond, you would usually be wrong. You need to ‘discount’ those amounts to take into account the ‘time value of money’. This is why when you are dealing in bonds it is important to know the ‘coupon rate’ (what is Dell paying each period?). But it is also important to know your sellers’/buyers’ own personal discount rates. This will vary from person to person and institution to institution, but it is what actually sets the PRICE you would buy this bond for. There are three general cases for the discount rate (or the MARKET rate). First, where the market rate == the coupon rate. This is known as “par” in bond parlance. Second, where the market rate < the coupon rate. This is known as “premium” in bond parlance. Third, where the market rate > coupon rate. This is known as a ‘discount’ bond. But before we get into those in too much depth, how does discounting work? The idea behind discounting is that you need to account for the idea that a dollar today is not worth the same as a dollar tomorrow. (It’s usually worth ‘more’ tomorrow.) You discount a lump sum, like the return of the principal, differently than you do a series of equal cash flows, like the stream of $800 interest payments. The formula for discounting a lump sum is: Present Value=Future Value* (1/(1+interest rate))^((# of periods)) The formula for discounting a stream of equal payments is: Present Value=(Single Payment)* (〖1-(1+i)〗^((-n))/i) (i = interest rate and n = number of periods) *cite investopedia So let’s look at how this would look in pricing the pretend Dell bond as a par bond. First, we discount the return of the $10,000 principal as (10,000 (1 / 1.08)^5). That equals $6,807.82. Next we discount the 5 equal payments of $800 as (800* (3.9902)). I just plugged and chugged but you can do that yourself. That equals $3,192.18. You may get slightly different numbers with rounding. So you add the two together, and it says that you would be willing to pay ($6,807.82 + $3,192.18) = $10,000. Surprise! When the bond is a par bond you’re basically being compensated for the time value of money with the interest payments. You purchase the bond at the ‘face value’, which is the principal that will be returned at the end. If you worked through the math for a 6% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, you would see that it’s “premium”, because you would pay more than the principal that is returned to obtain the bond [10,842.87 vs 10,000]. Similarly, if you work through the math for a 10% discount rate on an 8% coupon bond, it’s a ‘discount’ bond because you will pay less than the principal that is returned for the bond [9,241.84 vs 10,000]. It’s easy to see how an investor could hold our imaginary Dell bond for one year, collect the first interest payment, and then sell the bond on to another investor. The mechanics of the calculations are the same, except that one less interest payment is available, and the principal will be returned one year sooner… so N=4 in both formulae. Still with me? Now that we’re on the same page about how a bond is priced, we can talk about “Yield To Maturity”, which is at the heart of your main question. Bond “yields” like the ones you can access on CNBC or Yahoo!Finance or wherever you may be looking are actually taking the reverse approach to this. In these cases the prices are ‘fixed’ in that the sellers have listed the bonds for sale, and specified the price. Since the coupon values are fixed already by whatever organization issued the bond, the rate of return can be imputed from those values. To do that, you just do a bit of algebra and swap “present value” and “future value” in our two equations. Let’s say that Dell has gone private, had an awesome year, and figured out how to make robot unicorns that do wonderful things for all mankind. You decide that now would be a great time to sell your bond after holding it for one year… and collecting that $800 interest payment. You think you’d like to sell it for $10,500. (Since the principal return is fixed (+10,000); the number of periods is fixed (4); and the interest payments are fixed ($800); but you’ve changed the price... something else has to adjust and that is the discount rate.) It’s kind of tricky to actually use those equations to solve for this by hand… you end up with two equations… one unknown, and set them equal. So, the easiest way to solve for this rate is actually in Excel, using the function =RATE(NPER, PMT, PV, FV). NPER = 4, PMT = 800, PV=-10500, and FV=10000. Hint to make sure that you catch the minus sign in front of the present value… buyer pays now for the positive return of 10,000 in the future. That shows 6.54% as the effective discount rate (or rate of return) for the investor. That is the same thing as the yield to maturity. It specifies the return that a bond investor would see if he or she purchased the bond today and held it to maturity. 3. What factors (in terms of supply and demand) drive changes in the bond market? I hope it’s clear now how the tradeoff works between yields going UP when prices go DOWN, and vice versa. It happens because the COUPON rate, the number of periods, and the return of principal for a bond are fixed. So when someone sells a bond in the middle of its term, the only things that can change are the price and corresponding yield/discount rate. Other commenters… including you… have touched on some of the reasons why the prices go up and down. Generally speaking, it’s because of the basics of supply and demand… higher level of bonds for sale to be purchased by same level of demand will mean prices go down. But it’s not ‘just because interest rates are going up and down’. It has a lot more to do with the expectations for 1) risk, 2) return and 3) future inflation. Sometimes it is action by the Fed, as Joe Taxpayer has pointed out. If they sell a lot of bonds, then the basics of higher supply for a set level of demand imply that the prices should go down. Prices going down on a bond imply that yields will go up. (I really hope that’s clear by now). This is a common monetary lever that the government uses to ‘remove money’ from the system, in that they receive payments from an investor up front when the investor buys the bond from the Fed, and then the Fed gradually return that cash back into the system over time. Sometimes it is due to uncertainty about the future. If investors at large believe that inflation is coming, then bonds become a less attractive investment, as the dollars received for future payments will be less valuable. This could lead to a sell-off in the bond markets, because investors want to cash out their bonds and transfer that capital to something that will preserve their value under inflation. Here again an increase in supply of bonds for sale will lead to decreased prices and higher yields. At the end of the day it is really hard to predict exactly which direction bond markets will be moving, and more importantly WHY. If you figure it out, move to New York or Chicago or London and work as a trader in the bond markets. You’ll make a killing, and if you’d like I will be glad to drive your cars for you. 4. How does the availability of money supply for banks drive changes in other lending rates? When any investment organization forms, it builds its portfolio to try to deliver a set return at the lowest risk possible. As a corollary to that, it tries to deliver the maximum return possible for a given level of risk. When we’re talking about a bank, DumbCoder’s answer is dead on. Banks have various options to choose from, and a 10-year T-bond is broadly seen as one of the least risky investments. Thus, it is a benchmark for other investments. 5. So… now, why do mortgage rates tend to increase when the published treasury bond yield rate increases? The traditional, residential 30-year mortgage is VERY similar to a bond investment. There is a long-term investment horizon, with fixed cash payments over the term of the note. But the principal is returned incrementally during the life of the loan. So, since mortgages are ‘more risky’ than the 10-year treasury bond, they will carry a certain premium that is tied to how much more risky an individual is as a borrower than the US government. And here it is… no one actually directly changes the interest rate on 10-year treasuries. Not even the Fed. The Fed sets a price constraint that it will sell bonds at during its periodic auctions. Buyers bid for those, and the resulting prices imply the yield rate. If the yield rate for current 10-year bonds increases, then banks take it as a sign that everyone in the investment community sees some sign of increased risk in the future. This might be from inflation. This might be from uncertain economic performance. But whatever it is, they operate with some rule of thumb that their 30-year mortgage rate for excellent credit borrowers will be the 10-year plus 1.5% or something. And they publish their rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "732d7e94a01d2d9f4a5574b742e151da", "text": "Long term gov't bonds fluctuate in price with a seemingly small interest rate fluctuation because many years of cash inflows are discounted at low rates. This phenomenon is dulled in a high interest rate environment. For example, just the principal repayment is worth ~1/3, P * 1/(1+4%)^30, what it will be in 30 years at 4% while an overnight loan paying an unrealistic 4% is worth essentially the same as the principal, P * 1/(1+4%)^(1/365). This is more profound in low interest rate economies because, taking the countries undergoing the present misfortune, one can see that their overnight interest rates are double US long term rates while their long term rates are nearly 10x as large as US long term rates. If there were much supply at the longer maturities which have been restrained by interest rates only manageable by the highly skilled or highly risky, a 4% increase on a 30% bond is only about a 20% decline in bond price while a 4% increase on a 4% bond is a 50% decrease. The easiest long term bond to manipulate quantitatively is the perpetuity where p is the price of the bond, i is the interest payment per some arbitrary period usually 1 year, and r is the interest rate paid per some arbitrary period usually 1 year. Since they are expressly linked, a price can be implied for a given interest rate and vice versa if the interest payment is known or assumed. At a 4% interest rate, the price is At 4.04%, the price is , a 1% increase in interest rates and a 0.8% decrease in price . Longer term bonds such as a 30 year or 20 year bond will not see as extreme price movements. The constant maturity 30 year treasury has fluctuated between 5% and 2.5% to ~3.75% now from before the Great Recession til now, so prices will have more or less doubled and then reduced because bond prices are inversely proportional to interest rates as generally shown above. At shorter maturities, this phenomenon is negligible because future cash inflows are being discounted by such a low amount. The one month bill rarely moves in price beyond the bid/ask spread during expansion but can be expected to collapse before a recession and rebound during.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1542bcc538c404dc66e2c16e89a01340", "text": "Lowered rates = boom for equities, currently held bonds, and assets. Cheaper money means a (disproportionately) good time had by all. This all comes with malinvestment, potential for moral hazard, and savers losing in a big way. Why save for retirement when your risk free return on US Treasuries can barely keep up with inflation? As an aside, it is not really a risk free rate anymore, with $20 trillion in debt and no real hope of paying it off. This is why we see the rate increases and movement towards asset sales by the Fed to get the poop off their books. They are worried about all of the above and need more arrows in their quiver when the next recession hits. They won't have enough, however. They are trying to right a ship that is fully overturned. This is now the longest period of growth (however tepid) since the tech bubble of the 1990's. Are the fundamentals really better than then?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebdb1628c3593302cee0c498228e0163", "text": "\"Wrong. Business lending has boomed under QE.. does the term \"\"cov-lite\"\" sound familiar? That's because there's so much liquidity, that they're willing to lend to companies with little to no restrictions. There is so much credit to go around, that a \"\"High Yield Bond\"\" can price at L+800 bps. When you're taking all the risk of a HY issuer, and maxing your return at 8.5%-9%, it's not too appealing. Instead, you could take a bit more risk, but also get all of the potential upside of equities. 1. Fed buys assets, injects money into banks. 2. Banks, flush with liquidity, need to put their balance sheet to use and begin lending to everyone. 2. Bond market flooded with supply, causes bond yields to drop to historic lows. 3. Investors don't enjoy limiting upside for incredibly low returns, and begin flooding equity markets to get some sort of yield. Business lending is booming, making equities the only place to get larger returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e437a2c62972a44657f449075e12786", "text": "\"Debt is nominal, which means when inflation happens, the value of the money owed goes down. This is great for the borrower and bad for the lender. \"\"Investing\"\" can mean a lot of different things. Frequently it is used to describe buying common stock, which is an ownership claim on a company. A company is not a nominally fixed asset, by which I mean if there was a bunch of inflation and nothing else happened (i.e., the inflation was not the cause or result of some other economic change) then the nominal value of the company will go up along with the prices of other things. Based on the above, I'd say you are incorrect to treat debt and investment returns the same way with respect to inflation. When we say equity returns 9%, we mean it returns a real 7% plus 2% inflation or whatever. If the rate of inflation increased to 10% and nothing else happened in the economy, the same equity would be expected to return 17%. In fact, the company's (nominally fixed) debts would be worth less, increasing the real value of the company at the expense of their debt-holders. On the other hand, if we entered a period of high inflation, your debt liability would go way down and you would have benefited greatly from borrowing and investing at the same time. If you are expecting inflation in the abstract sense, then borrowing and investing in common stock is a great idea. Inflation is frequently the result (or cause) of a period of economic trouble, so please be aware that the above makes sense if we treat inflation as the only thing that changed. If inflation came about because OPEC makes oil crazy expensive, millennials just stop working, all of our factories got bombed to hades, or trade wars have shut down international commerce, then the value of stocks would most definitely be affected. In that case it's not really \"\"inflation\"\" that affected the stock returns, though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68379ec96b414de08349c1d219ab07ad", "text": "It depends. Very generally when yields go up stocks go down and when yields go down stocks go up (as has been happening lately). If we look at the yield of the 10 year bond it reflects future expectations for interest rates. If the rate today is very low but expectations are that the short term rates will go up that would be reflected in a higher yield simply because no one would buy the longer term bond if they could simply wait out and get a better return on shoter term investments. If expectations are that the rate is going down you get what's called an inverted yield curve. The inverted yield curve is usually a sign of economic trouble ahead. Yields are also influenced by inflation expectations as @rhaskett is alluding in his answer. So. If the stock market crashes because the economy is doing poorly and if interest rates are relatively high then people would expect the rates to go down and therefore bonds will go up! However, if there's rampant inflation and the rates are going up we can expect stocks and bonds to move in opposite directions. Another interpretation of that is that one would expect stock prices to track inflation pretty well because company revenue is going to go up with inflation. If we're just talking about a bump in the road correction in a healthy economy I wouldn't expect that to have much of an immediate effect though bonds might go down a little bit in the short term but possibly even more in the long term as interest rates eventually head higher. Another scenario is a very low interest rate environment (as today) with a stock market crash and not a lot of room for yields to go further down. Both stocks and bonds are influenced by current interest rates, interest rate expectations, current inflation, inflation expectations and stock price expectation. Add noise and stir.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "160c44a324bab3abc239fa3ebc2a53bf", "text": "Yes, the Fed has made a point of buying up longer-term bonds to push down rates on that part of the curve. That's not an indication that they're having problems selling Treasuries, in fact far from it. But apparently there's no demand for Treasuries and Bloomberg is just making up lies to help get Obama reelected? >Investors are plowing into Treasuries (USB2YBC) at a record pace as the supply of the world’s safest securities dwindles, ensuring yields will stay low regardless of whether the Federal Reserve undertakes more stimulus to fight unemployment. Buyers bid $3.19 for each dollar of the $538 billion in notes and bonds sold this year, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 and on pace to beat the high of $3.04 in 2011. The net amount of Treasuries available will decline by 30 percent once proceeds from maturing securities are reinvested, according to data from CRT Capital Group LLC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-09/record-treasury-demand-keeps-yields-low-as-supply-shrinks.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7752f67b871bc3bc345990de3f5221fa", "text": "why would anyone buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? 1) You are making the assumption that interest rates has bottom out hence there is no further possibility of it going down further , i mean who expected Lehman Brother to go bankrupt 2) Long term investors who are able to wait for the bad times of the bond market to end and in the mean time dont mind some dividend payment of 2-3%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "325ef8ebd7d05c2444b8ed63b93414b1", "text": "\"Those are the \"\"right\"\" yields. They are historically (but not \"\"nonsensically\"\") low. Those yields are reflective of the sluggish U.S. and global economic activity of the past decade. If global growth were higher, the yields would be higher. The period most nearly comparable to the past 10 years in U.S. and world history was the depressed 1930s. (I am the author of this 2004 book that predicted a stock market crash (which occurred in 2008), and the modern 1930s, but I was wrong in my assumption that the modern 1930s would involve another depression rather than 'slow growth.')\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d807445b9349bc0ed11734145071c16", "text": "There are some out there making the argument that negative yields on the German Schatz (2-year note) are the result of speculators betting on a break-up of the euro area and its common currency. Specifically that assets held in euros, i.e. German bonds, would be re-denominated into a new Deutschmark that would appreciate in value against other European currencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5b28536be0d4fccbfe8f0bfebe1655e", "text": "Source on monetary contraction in the US over the past ten years? CBs refer to more than just the fed. Buying means treasury yields go down which pushes investors into other asset classes. I am curious as to which asset classes would be least affected by excess liquidity in the system. Also see the following link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-09/mystery-central-bank-buyer-revealed-snb-now-owns-record-84-billion-us-stocks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "518fa26daa042201cbe1c0e3e34addc3", "text": "In a secular bull market, strong investor sentiment drives prices higher, as participants, over time, are net buyers. Secular markets are typically driven by large-scale national and worldwide events... demographic/ population shifts, governmental policies... bear market periods occur within the longer interval, but do not reverse the trend. There are still many reasons to buy the long bond, despite the lack of yield (nearly flat term structure of interest rates). Despite the recent credit ratings agency downgrades of U.S. sovereign risk, the T-bond offers greater relative security than many alternatives. If Germany were NOT part of the EU, its government bonds would be issued by the Bundesbank, denominated in Deutsche Marks. German government bonds would probably be a better choice than the U.S. Treasury's 30-year bond. Long-term maturity U.S. Treasuries are in demand by investment and portfolio managers because:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c4877759badd49c65120dde596c39fc", "text": "The people who bought when interest rates were higher, do they get anything out of it? The present value just went up of their Bonds just went up, but it probably evened out to the 3% they were going to get right? Do they make more money selling the bond now, or holding on to it till maturity in PV terms?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34665581461e0a8d5d33457ae25d7895", "text": "The question in my view is going into Opinion and economics. Why would I buy a bond with a negative yield? I guess you have answered yourself; Although the second point is more relevant for high net worth individual or large financial institutions / Governments where preserving cash is an important consideration. Currently quite a few Govt Bonds are in negative as most Govt want to encourage spending in an effort to revive economy.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fcc2a5829e0f3d394fe7c25433dab68e	Borrowed shares how are they tracked?	[ { "docid": "d3123290e32d907c6d91f25b639be154", "text": "Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted. This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public. Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock. The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012. This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG. For naked short selling additional information is tracked. If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver. No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon. A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting. When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell. This will result in a large amount of naked short selling. When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ). The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period. The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered. Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist. For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period. This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3c281b87286decfa69e99007af37e74c", "text": "Generally the number of shares of a U.S. exchange-listed stock which have been shorted are tracked by the exchange and reported monthly. This number is usually known as the open short interest. You may also see a short interest ratio, which is the short interest divided by the average daily volume for the stock. The short interest is available on some general stock data sites, such as Yahoo Finance (under Key Statistics) and dailyfinance.com (also on a Key Statistics subpage for the stock).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4746c7f0338bf0b473f7030d7e6dc408", "text": "You can obtain a stocklist if you file a lawsuit as a shareholder against the company demanding that you receive the list. It's called an inspection case. The company then has to go to Cede and/or the Depository Trust Company who then compiles the NOBO COBO list of beneficiary stockholders. SEC.gov gives you a very limited list of people who have had to file 13g or 13d or similar filings. These are large holders. To get the list of ALL stockholders you have to go through Cede.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "250e59e43c4663a659e26028f92aa583", "text": "I would track it using a regular asset account. The same way I would track the value of a house, a car, or any other personal asset. ETA: If you want automatic tracking, you could set it up as a stock portfolio holding shares of the GLD ETF. One share of GLD represents 1/10 ounce of gold. So, if you have 5 ounces of gold, you would set that up in Quicken as 50 shares of GLD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2", "text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48", "text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c1cfbd0fec76678e5f433988678292d4", "text": "\"Assuming that the ETF is tracking an index, is there a reason for not looking at using details on the index? Typically the exact constituents of an index are proprietary, and companies will not publish them publicly without a license. S&P is the heavyweight in this area, and the exact details of the constituents at any one time are not listed anywhere. They do list the methodology, and announcements as to index changes, but not a full list of actual underlying constituents. Is there a easy way to automatically (ie. through an API or something, not through just reading a prospectus) get information about an ETF's underlying securities? I have looked for this information before, and based on my own searches, in a word: no. Index providers, and providers of APIs which provide index information, make money off of such services. The easiest way may be to navigate to each provider and download the CSV with the full list of holdings, if one exists. You can then drop this into your pipeline and write a program to pull the data from the CSV file. You could drop the entire CSV into Excel and use VBA to automagically pull the data into a usable format. For example, on the page for XIU.TO on the Blackrock site, after clicking the \"\"All Holdings\"\" tab there is a link to \"\"Download holdings\"\", which will provide you with a CSV. I am not sure if all providers look at this. Alternatively, you could write the ETF company themselves.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "495399b295f2a543d63c1288582a78bb", "text": "\"A \"\"stock price\"\" is nothing but the price at which some shares of that stock were sold on an exchange from someone willing to sell those shares at that price (or more) to someone willing to buy them at that price (or less). Pretty much every question about how stock prices work is answered by the paragraph above, which an astonishingly large number of people don't seem to be aware of. So there is no explicit \"\"tracking\"\" mechanism at all. Just people buying and selling, and if the current going price on two exchanges differ, then that is an opportunity for someone to make money by buying on one exchange and selling on the other - until the prices are close enough that the fees and overhead make that activity unprofitable. This is called \"\"arbitrage\"\" and a common activity of investment banks or (more recently) hedge funds and specialized trading firms spun off by said banks due to regulation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9840638aad3cf96aee25bd53d600d8d4", "text": "\"Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar. In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible. In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held \"\"in street name\"\". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f3e9c74845865a96e9d863870771b7e", "text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "835aea544af9ee19eb114bf793e8f425", "text": "\"I keep spreadsheets that verify each $ distribution versus the rate times number of shares owned. For mutual funds, I would use Yahoo's historical data, but sometimes shows up late (a few days, a week?) and it isn't always quite accurate enough. A while back I discovered that MSN had excellent data when using their market price chart with dividends \"\"turned on,\"\" HOWEVER very recently they have revamped their site and the trusty URLs I have previously used no longer work AND after considerable browsing, I can no longer find this level of detail anywhere on their site !=( Happily, the note above led me to the Google business site, and it looks like I am \"\"back in business\"\"... THANKS!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f2195b1e5cbd163326130ce19f688aa", "text": "\"Not a bond holder, but when we get dividends we usually just buy up a benchmark index tracking ETF unless/until we're ready to rebalance our portfolio. Most of the trades in the day are earmarked with the reason \"\"spending cash\"\". I'd assume it's similar for bond holders and coupons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f726f42e288957f12902d0dad5d50bf", "text": "\"There is probably a better way, but you can do the following: (1) Right click on the right pointing arrow next to the \"\"1-20 of xx rows\"\" message at the bottom right of the table, and select \"\"Copy link location\"\" (2) Paste that into the location (3) At the end of the pasted text there is a \"\"&output=json\"\", delete that and everything after it. (4) hit enter What you get is a page that displays the set of securities returned by and in a very similar display to the \"\"stock screener\"\" without the UI elements to change your selections. You can bookmark this page.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f2a13d7f418f6ab1209e08d7ad0ce6", "text": "The portfolio manager at Value Research Online does this very nicely. It tracks the underlying holdings of each fund, yielding correct calculations for funds that invest across the board. Take a look at the screenshot from my account: If you have direct equity holdings (e.g., not through a mutual fund), that too gets integrated. Per stock details are also visible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cecb611496cca6b62da8005849636d21", "text": "You need to track every buy and sell to track your gains, or more likely, losses. Yes, you report each and every transactions. Pages of schedule D.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b08954541826ede87341a0bc377e552b", "text": "\"Treasury stock is not really represented in the Balance Sheet as a \"\"Treasury stock\"\" line item in the assets. Some companies will break out Treasury Shares as a line item in the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading of the balance sheet but Apple hides it in the \"\"Shares Issued and Outstanding\"\" counts under the \"\"Shareholders Equity\"\" heading. As of the most recent Q2 2017 quarterly report There are 5,205,815,000 shares issued against 5,336,166,000 shares outstanding. This indicates that Apple is retaining about 130,351,000 shares in treasury. On the Q1 10-Q you can see that Apple had 5,255,423,000 shares issued which indicates roughly 49mm shares were repurchased by the end of Q2. You can roughly verify this by looking at page 18 of the Q2 filing in the summary of the share repurchase program. Repurchased as part of an Accelerated Share Repurchase arrangement bleeds between quarters but from February 2017 through May 2017 there have been 17.5mm shares repurchased. 31mm shares were also repurchased on the open market in Q2. The \"\"shares issued\"\" total is on a downward trend as part of Apple's share repurchase initiative that has been underway for the last couple of years.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
548c2aca2516f5290988d8e52c359e3c	Is it possible to eliminate PMI (Personal/Private Mortgage Insurance) on a mortgage before reaching 20% down on principal?	[ { "docid": "24f18459b71f28448d7517daedaf3f30", "text": "On a 5% mortgage, after 24 months of payments on a 30 yr amortization, you will have paid 3% of the principal, so all else being equal, you have 15% equity. If the value is up, even a bit, the first step is to call the bank. If you are pretty sure it's up enough, ask them to remove PMI in exchange for you paying the appraisal fee. If they hesitate, ask them if you prepay the remaining missing 5%, if they'll pull the fee. 8% of principal is paid by the end of year 5, at which time they have no choice but to remove it. Doing so any sooner is their call. If they agree to the pre-pay deal, I'd find a way to raise the funds. It will save you over $5000 in a short period. Last, while 5% really is great, especially NPNC, shop around, you may find another no cost deal at the same or lower rate, no harm to look, and they may appraise you at 80% LTV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "533546a8bd52ff06c852c9289bb0573c", "text": "\"Banks are currently a lot less open to 'creative financing' than they were a few years ago, but you may still be able to take advantage of the tactic of splitting the loan into two parts, a smaller 'second mortgage' sometimes called a 'purchase money second' at a slightly higher interest rate for around 15-20% of the value, and the remaining in a conventional mortgage. Since this tactic has been around for a long time, it's not quite in the category of the shenanegans they were pulling a few years back, so has a lot more potential to still be an option. I did this in for my first house in '93 and again in '99 when I moved to a larger home after getting married. It allowed me to get into both houses with less than 20% down and not pay PMI. This way neither loan is above 80% so you don't have to pay PMI. The interest on the second loan will be higher, but usually only a few percent, and is thus usually a fraction of what you were paying for the PMI. (and it's deductible from your taxes) If you've been making your payments on time and have a good credit rating, then you might be able to find someone who would offer you such a deal. You might even be able to get a rate for your primary that is down in the low 4's depending on where rates are today and what your credit rating is like. If you can get the main loan low enough, even if the other is like say 7%, your blended rate may still be right around 5% If you can find a deal like this, it's also great material to use to negotiate with your current lender \"\"either help me get the PMI off this loan or I'm going to refinance.\"\" Then you can compare what they will offer you with what you can get in a refinance and decide what makes the most sense for you. On word of warning, when refinancing, do NOT get sucked into an adjustable rate mortgage. If you are finding life 'tight' right now with house payments and all, the an ARM could be highly seductive since they often offer a very low initial rate.. however then invariably adjust upwards, and you could suddenly find yourself with a monster payment far larger than what you have now. With low rates where they are, getting a conventional fixed rate loan (or loans in the case of the tactic being discussed here) is the way to go.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "eb041bd16df447903c31bf70394077a4", "text": "\"When I first purchased my home six years ago, I was able to get into a Bank of America First Time Homebuyer program that required no down payment and no PMI. While I hope you find a lower initial payment, the banks have tightened their requirements so that buyers have \"\"more skin in the game\"\" so to speak. Exotic loan options coupled with the subprime mortgage crisis caused the housing bubble to burst. Now banks are being very selective about who they provide a mortgage. The other things you need to look at are interest rate and terms. Do you feel you will be in the home for the next 30 years? Have you considered a 15 year mortgage? Shop around. PMI used to have a bad connotation (at least it did when I bought my home six years ago), but I feel now that it would have been worthwhile for the banks and the economy in the long run had banks required buyers to utilize PMI.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ec624787c105617815d274c4cc520a0", "text": "Rules of thumb? Sure - Put down 20% to pay no PMI. The mortgage payment (including property tax) should be no more than 28% of your gross monthly income. These two rules will certainly put a cap on the home price. If you have more than the 20% to put down on the house you like, stop right here. Don't put more down and don't buy a bigger house. Set that money aside for long term investing (i.e. retirement savings) or your emergency fund. You can always make extra payments and shorten the length of the mortgage, you just can't easily get it back. In my opinion, one is better off getting a home that's too small and paying the transaction costs to upsize 5-10 years later than to buy too big, and pay all the costs associated with the home for the time you are living there. The mortgage, property tax, maintenance, etc. The too-big house can really take it toll on your wallet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5694e32c676d48aaca4d8e2f863eaf4d", "text": "If you selected a mortgage that allows additional payments to be credited against the principal rather than as early payment of normal installments, them yes, doing so will reduce the actual cost of the loan. You may have to explicitly instruct the bank to use the money this way each time, if prepay is their default assumption. Check with your lender, and/or read the terms of your mortgage, to find out if this is allowed and how to do it. If your mortgage doesn't allow additional payments against the principal, you may want to consider refinancing into a mortgage which does, or into a mortgage with shorter term and higher monthly payments, to obtain the same lower cost (modulo closing costs on the new mortgage; run the numbers.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "886e10a51f92d7a079ec4b39db998528", "text": "\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d3d1eaef8f00b2ff9dd9bc0f95d62e", "text": "\"How would having a 20% down payment change the conversation for you? And who are you looking to get a mortgage from? If you go to a local community bank or credit union, you might have a better chance explaining your situation and having them take that into account rather than going to one of the mega-banks (Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc) who may only look at your FICO score when making a lending decision. The thing to keep in mind is \"\"how much of a risk are you to the lending institution?\"\" If you have a strong down payment 15% to 20%, you will be a much better candidate. Bear in mind, anything less than 20% down will require PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance, which I think runs a certain dollar amount per $1k you have borrowed). If you have a strong downpayment, and the only debts you have are your student loans (which will be paid off in five years anyway), then you are far less risky than someone in a similar situation with more debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c68d769428eb86677848174ed88fdd4a", "text": "\"I think the basic question you're asking is whether you'd be better off putting the $20K into an IRA or similar investment, or if your best bet is to pay down your mortgage. The answer is...that depends. What you didn't share is what your mortgage balance is so that we can understand how using that money to pay down the mortgage would affect you. The lower your remaining balance on the mortgage, the more impact paying it down will affect your long-term finances. For example, if your remaining principal balance is more than $200k, paying down $20k in principal will not have as significant an effect as if you only have $100k principal balance and were paying down $20k of that. To me, one option is to put the $20k toward mortgage principal, then perhaps do a refinance on your remaining mortgage with the goal of getting a better interest rate. This would double the benefit to you. First, your mortgage payment would be lower by virtue of a lower principal balance (assuming you keep the same term period in your refinanced mortgage as you have now. In other words, if you have a 15-year now, your new mortgage should be 15 years also to see the best effect on your payment). Further, if you can obtain a lower interest rate on the new loan, now you have the dual benefit of a lower principal balance to pay down plus the reduced interest cost on that principal balance. This would put money into your pocket immediately, which I think is part of your goal, although the question does hinge on what you'd pay in points and fees for a refinance. You can invest, but with that comes risk, and right now may not be the ideal time to enter the markets given all of the uncertainties with the \"\"Brexit\"\" issue. By paying down your mortgage principal, even if you do nothing else, you can save yourself considerable interest in the long term which might be more beneficial than the return you'd get from the markets or an IRA at this point. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a92073afad23a27fb936bf7bdc9d0f55", "text": "Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan. You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home. Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you. Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal. PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer). Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI. Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages. This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations. Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment. Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in. Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget. All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit. So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking. Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs. Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition. With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be. I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid. This calculator can help you figure that out. This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a62e6ccc731d59af03ef35edf598bee2", "text": "Private Mortgage Insurance. It's money that you pay to an insurance company to make the lender whole in the event that you go into default. It's a real waste of money for you. If you are trying to finance more than 80% of the value of a home, a standard mortage is likely to require that you get PMI. Nowadays there are other options which involve paying substantially more interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42ea5f7d18bb26c23438d6b9b3c31ad8", "text": "Can you take 2 loans -- an 80% and an 8% loan? Same payments as doing PMI, but the 8% can be paid off in pretty short order and drop payments significantly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fc26af0d71d5760327f3aff57b79e91", "text": "Do you need to put down 25% on a conventional loan? Conventional loans can be done with 5%, 10%, or 20% down (if you're willing to pay PMI for the <20% down scenario). If you don't like FHA's terms, don't do an FHA loan..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be45bc8eb699d9b2ecd2d5c66dd9bd30", "text": "If you get a loan for 80% of the value of your house, that's equivalent to buying a house with a 20% down payment (assuming the appraised value is what you'd buy it for). That's the minimum down payment for Fannie Mae backed loans without PMI (mortgage insurance). See this table for more details. Freddie Mac (the other major mortgage backer) has a good fact sheet on cash out loans (which is what this is called) here. It also specifies: Maximum LTV ratio of 80 percent for 1-unit primary residences As noted in other answers, the 80% rule is to protect the bank (and ultimately, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who will eventually buy most of these loans) so it is more likely to recoup the total value of the mortgage if they must foreclose on the house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe9b717b496e0c08bb2428b618d1502d", "text": "If you already have the money, put the 20% down but here is another option: You can put whatever you want down...Let's say 10%. For the other 10%, take out a 2nd mortgage. This enables you to avoid PMI. The rate you will get on the second mortgage will be higher than the first but the combination of 2 mortgages may be less than 1 plus PMI. When you get to 20% equity you can refinance and consolidate to one lower rate mortgage without PMI.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26d1fa0919c5d0cd9e23e44fd94ee05e", "text": "yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4ce60e9a0bfdaf6901a81d352ebcb08", "text": "\"I think the idea here is that because of the way mortgages are amortized, you can drop additional principal payments in the early years of the mortgage and significantly lower the overall interest expense over the life of the loan. A HELOC accrues interest like a credit card, so if you make a large principal payment using a HELOC, you will be able to retire those \"\"chunks\"\" of debt quicker than if you made normal mortgage payments. I haven't worked out the numbers, but I suspect that you could achieve similar results by simply paying ahead -- making even one extra payment per year will take 7-9 years off of a 30 year loan. I think that the advantage of the HELOC approach is that if you borrow enough, you may be able to recalculate/lower the payment of the mortgage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8e1b6213970d56fb9c9bd090efd67bc", "text": "Would bond holders differentiate in their EV/EBITDA calcs when compared to equity holders when valuing a private company? For e.g. when it comes to a company that has built a power plant, generally equity holders would take an additional haircut/discount for the lack of marketability. Would debt holders do the same? Would there be a higher valuation otherwise?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
79f802bd8fb03e5aa6f0b1659d1888b4	Refinance when going to sell?	[ { "docid": "c9d3f1bead17de6945a64498d5259afc", "text": "When evaluating a refinance, it all comes down to the payback. Refinancing costs money in closing costs. There are different reasons for refinancing, and they all have different methods for calculating payback. One reason to finance is to get a lower interest rate. When determining the payback time, you calculate how long it would take to recover your closing costs with the amount you save in interest. For example, if the closing costs are $2,000, your payback time is 2 years if it takes 2 years to save that amount in interest with the new interest rate vs. the old one. The longer you hold the mortgage after you refinance, the more money you save in interest with the new rate. Generally, it doesn't pay to refinance to a lower rate right before you sell, because you aren't holding the mortgage long enough to see the interest savings. You seem to be 3 years away from selling, so you might be able to see some savings here in the next three years. A second reason people refinance is to lower their monthly payment if they are having trouble paying it. I see you are considering switching from a 15 year to a 30 year; is one of your goals to reduce your monthly payment? By refinancing to a 30 year, you'll be paying a lot of interest in your first few years of payments, extending the payback time of your lower interest rate. A third reason people refinance is to pull cash out of their equity. This applies to you as well. Since you are planning on using it to remodel the home you are trying to sell, you have to ask yourself if the renovations you are planning will payoff in the increased sale price of your home. Often, renovations don't increase the value of their home as much as they cost. You do renovations because you will enjoy living in the renovated home, and you get some of your money back when you sell. But sometimes you can increase the value of your home by enough to cover the cost of the renovation. Talk to a real estate agent in your area to get their advice on how much the renovations you are talking about will increase the value of your home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85442f19d3d662e5261ab8dc1f1a1f6f", "text": "\"In the first years of a loan, most of what you're paying is interest, so my guess is that this is a bad idea. But there are lots of mortgage calculators offered for free on the web (your bank's website may have one) so I'd suggest that you spend some time running actual numbers before deciding. Reminder: Most renovations do NOT pay for themselves in increased sales price, not least because you'll lose the buyers who don't like what you've done but would have been happy to renovate it themselves to their own tastes. Unless there is something which will actively impair your ability to sell the house, you should usually renovate when you plan to stay there for a while and take your returns in enjoying the house more, NOT on the way out. (There's been some recent discussion of this over in Home Improvement, pointing out that the changes which return more than they cost are usually simple things like refreshing the paint, \"\"staging\"\" the house so it looks lived in but not cluttered, replacing damaged blinds, washing windows, putting out a few more flowers, and so on.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "201f87f4854f907f755107b5e157a8f2", "text": "The big one is to keep you from refinancing it with someone else to get a better rate. There may also be some funny-money reasons having to do with being able to count this as a new sale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ca4fe8511e65b7cb8ff2d94ddb5fe0e", "text": "What you have to remember is you are buying a piece of the company. Think of it in terms of buying a business. Just like a business, you need to decide how long you are willing to wait to get paid back for your investment. Imagine you were trying to sell your lemonade stand. This year your earnings will be $100, next year will be $110, the year after that $120 and so on. Would you be willing to sell it for $100?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef9429865803bf29a1a71258184dcea3", "text": "Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfbce967b0ac112361a262d4f6d7aa3d", "text": "\"You uncle is liable to pay \"\"Capital-Gains\"\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \"\"Infrastructure bonds\"\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \"\"Capital Gains\"\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0b313dc70955d4dd6322d735b89def0", "text": "Don't do it. I would sell one of my investment houses and use the equity to pay down your primary mortgage. Then I would refinance my primary mortgage in order to lower the payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b2738c0375134805211b8f5125af7ab", "text": "\"For new shares to be successfully sold, the price has to be below market price. If you currently own shares of that company, you should always get an option to buy those newly sold shares at that discounted price. The number of options depends on the relative number of shares you hold. Lets say you own 100 out of 1000 shares, currently priced at $10. 100 new shares are to be sold at $9. Since you are holding 10% of all shares, you have the option (i.e. the right) to buy 10 new (cheaper) shares (10% of 100) before anybody else can buy them. Theoretically, the money you save by getting the shares at a discounted price is equal to the money you lose by the share's value being diluted. So, if you're a shareholder and the company is increasing it's capital, you're given the right to \"\"go with it\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff0b15f9cbb3b8000b376045467a9566", "text": "As for refinancing: Many institutions charge up-front fees when doing any type of vehicle loan. Typically this is in the neighborhood of 1% the value of the loan, with a floor of $100 (although this may vary by lender). However, for the loan the be secured by the vehicle, the principle value must be less than the collateral value. In your case, this means there is a collateral shortfall of $4,000. When working with a traditional bank, you would have two options: pay the difference up front (reducing the principle value of the loan), or obtaining a separate loan for the difference. This separate loan would often have a higher interest rate unless you have some other form of collateral to secure it with. I doubt CarMax would do a separate loan. All that being said, if you plan on selling the vehicle within the next twelves months, don't bother refinancing. It won't be worth the hassle.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "364ad8ee0dbbf454c05d0adeea090961", "text": "\"Not to state the obvious, but you realize this can only be done in hindsight? Sure, you can project out to get a range of expected return, but the tax laws can change every year, your own income changes so your marginal rate will change. You may have started with a 7% mortgage, and refinanced now to 4.5%, so you are far better off than the original plan. I'll repeat what others mentioned, for your own home, the rent you are \"\"not\"\" paying is most of your return. A $100K home may appreciate at whatever rate 3-5%, say. But the $800/mo rent you don't have to pay is $9600/yr, nearly 10%. So when you imply that a house merely rising with inflation is a zero real return, I'd suggest that's far from accurate, all other expenses taken into account of course.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76b00f77433b0df7da99300876af2472", "text": "Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b22c2489d586e3c1cfc01bb3f21219c3", "text": "If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "302ff94541610d094a190bec9d6a88c4", "text": "Both seem to be reasonable. To decide you need to guess if the value of the house will go up or down between now and when you sell. If you think the value will go up - reach a calculation agreement now. If you think the value will go down - wait until the house is actually sold. So ya pays yer money, and ya takes yer chances... I think I understand the two scenarios Unless you are absolutely confident that you understand both scenarios - make sure your lawyer gets involved and explains them to you until you do understand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c8a416ad3271707caef66cfe7803798", "text": "Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0da8c2414ebdc46df7f1a8d8ddcacf03", "text": "Warranties are usually sold at 60-90% margin. They are just about always a bad deal. If you are forced to buy one, negotiate on price, and be wary of realtor or mortgage broker recommendations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b83ca62b000988b575cbcc0dac653872", "text": "The best thing to do to avoid this is not to sell as you've described. What purpose does it solve? If you're speculating, set a price at which you want to cash out and put a limit order. If you're a long term investor, then unless something fundamental has changed - why would you sell?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "321a9e0dfd37e1eb1cf5a0bb3780e3f3", "text": "EDIT: new ideas based on the full story. I wouldn't worry about the price history. While it is certainly true that some buyers might try to leverage that information against you, the bottom line is the price is the price. Both the buyer and the seller have to agree. If the initial listing was too high, then lower the price. If that isn't low enough, then readjust down. I see no harm in moving the price down over time repeatedly. In fact, I thin that is a good tactic to getting the most for the house. If you happen to have the luxury of time, then keep lowering that price until it sells. Don't fret how that behavior appears. You can lower the price as often as you like until it sells. I am not a real estate agent, and I am a terrible negotiator, but I would lower the price every quarter until it sells. You can't go down to fast (a buyer might wait you out) and you can't wait to long as you stated. Also, if you house is priced inline with the neighborhood, you can at least get offers and negotiate. Buy asking for such a premium (25%) folks might not even make an offer. You simply need to decide what is more important, the selling price or the time frame in getting it sold. If you house doesn't sell because the market doesn't support your price, then consider keeping it as a rental. You can do it yourself, or if you are not interested in that (large) amount of work, then hire a rental management company to do it for a fee. Renting a home is hard work and requires attention to detail, a good amount of your time and much labor. If you just need to wait a couple of years before selling, renting it can be a good option to cover your costs while you wait for the market to reach you. You should get advice on how to handle the money, how to rent it, how to deal with renters, and the the laws are in your jurisdiction. Rent it out to a trusted friend or family member for a steal of a deal. They save money, and you get the luxury of time waiting for the sale. With a real estate lawyer you hire, get a contract for a lease option or owner finance deal on the house. Sometimes you can expand the market of people looking to buy your house. If you have a willing purchaser will bad credit, you can be doing them a favor and solving your own issue. It costs money and you will make less on the sale, but it could be better than nothing. Take heed, there is a reason some people cannot get a traditional loan on their own. Before you extend your good name or credit think about it. It is another hassle for sure. This won't help if you have to pay off a mortgage, but you could donate it. This is another tricky deal that you really need to speak with a lawyer who specialize in charitable giving. There are tax benefits, but I would make any kind of a deal where tax deductions are the only benefit. This is common enough these days. If you are unable to pay for the mortgage, it benefits you and the bank to get into a short sale arrangement. They bank gets probably more money than if they have to foreclose (and they save money on legal fees) and you can get rid of the obligation. You will do a deed in lieu or the short sale depending on how the market it and what the house can be sold for. You and the bank will have to work it out. This will ruin for a credit for a while, and you will not likely qualify to get a new mortgage for at least a few years. You can stop paying your mortgage, tell the bank and they will foreclose. This is going to ruin your credit for a long time as well as disqualify you from mortgages in the near future. Don't do this. If you are planning a foreclosure, take the time to contact your bank and arrange a short sale or a deed in lieu. There isn't really any excuse to go into foreclosure if you are having problems. Talk to the bank and work out a deal.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2f7c9aac4450c57f500e8979cdeaff03	Does an individual share of a stock have some kind of unique identifier?	[ { "docid": "4156c4a82da8f673123236c67faea15a", "text": "\"I agree with the answer by @Michael that this number doesn't exist. It's hard to see what use it would have and it would be difficult to track. I'm writing a separate answer because I also disagree with the premise of your question: Individual shares of stock have never to my knowledge had such a number. Your comment about numbers on stock certificates identifies the certificate document, which will generally represent multiple shares of stock. That number no more identifies a single share of stock than the serial number on a $10 bill identifies any one of the ten dollars it represents. Even at the \"\"collective\"\" unit of $10, when the bill is eventually replaced with a new one, the new bill has a new number. No continuity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f993f0cda37e0b1db3d20ec22f0ad75", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cdd3d1f762c466f2b54e04bf2e36ef8", "text": "Nope, think what a nightmare that would be, a bunch of shares would be issued and then sold to tonnes of people, who might sell various partial numbers of them to others, who might buy them and others from 20 others all as part of one order though multiple fills... It would be nuts, and if one were to issue a certificate with the IDs of shares that were carried through such a process the likelihood is the fragmentation would be so great that 100K shares would have consist of almost as many fragments! Imagine a share certificate with 70K IDs/ranges? Yikes!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4ad78c252c10c6b6a1ea91d8e2332a20", "text": "\"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "651f0068eeb897a2615880fe252207ee", "text": "\"In an IPO (initial public offering) or APO (additional public offering) situation, a small group of stakeholders (as few as one) basically decide to offer an additional number of \"\"shares\"\" of equity in the company. Usually, these \"\"shares\"\" are all equal; if you own one share you own a percentage of the company equal to that of anyone else who owns one share. The sum total of all shares, theoretically, equals the entire value of the company, and so with N shares in existence, one share is equivalent to 1/Nth the company, and entitles you to 1/Nth of the profits of the company, and more importantly to some, gives you a vote in company matters which carries a weight of 1/Nth of the entire shareholder body. Now, not all of these shares are public. Most companies have the majority (51%+) of shares owned by a small number of \"\"controlling interests\"\". These entities, usually founding owners or their families, may be prohibited by agreement from selling their shares on the open market (other controlling interests have right of first refusal). For \"\"private\"\" companies, ALL the shares are divided this way. For \"\"public\"\" companies, the remainder is available on the open market, and those shares can be bought and sold without involvement by the company. Buyers can't buy more shares than are available on the entire market. Now, when a company wants to make more money, a high share price at the time of the issue is always good, for two reasons. First, the company only makes money on the initial sale of a share of stock; once it's in a third party's hands, any profit from further sale of the stock goes to the seller, not the company. So, it does little good to the company for its share price to soar a month after its issue; the company's already made its money from selling the stock. If the company knew that its shares would be in higher demand in a month, it should have waited, because it could have raised the same amount of money by selling fewer shares. Second, the price of a stock is based on its demand in the market, and a key component of that is scarcity; the fewer shares of a company that are available, the more they'll cost. When a company issues more stock, there's more shares available, so people can get all they want and the demand drops, taking the share price with it. When there's more shares, each share (being a smaller percentage of the company) earns less in dividends as well, which figures into several key metrics for determining whether to buy or sell stock, like earnings per share and price/earnings ratio. Now, you also asked about \"\"dilution\"\". That's pretty straightforward. By adding more shares of stock to the overall pool, you increase that denominator; each share becomes a smaller percentage of the company. The \"\"privately-held\"\" stocks are reduced in the same way. The problem with simply adding stocks to the open market, getting their initial purchase price, is that a larger overall percentage of the company is now on the open market, meaning the \"\"controlling interests\"\" have less control of their company. If at any time the majority of shares are not owned by the controlling interests, then even if they all agree to vote a certain way (for instance, whether or not to merge assets with another company) another entity could buy all the public shares (or convince all existing public shareholders of their point of view) and overrule them. There are various ways to avoid this. The most common is to issue multiple types of stock. Typically, \"\"common\"\" stock carries equal voting rights and equal shares of profits. \"\"Preferred stock\"\" typically trades a higher share of earnings for no voting rights. A company may therefore keep all the \"\"common\"\" stock in private hands and offer only preferred stock on the market. There are other ways to \"\"class\"\" stocks, most of which have a similar tradeoff between earnings percentage and voting percentage (typically by balancing these two you normalize the price of stocks; if one stock had better dividends and more voting weight than another, the other stock would be near-worthless), but companies may create and issue \"\"superstock\"\" to controlling interests to guarantee both profits and control. You'll never see a \"\"superstock\"\" on the open market; where they exist, they are very closely held. But, if a company issues \"\"superstock\"\", the market will see that and the price of their publicly-available \"\"common stock\"\" will depreciate sharply. Another common way to increase market cap without diluting shares is simply to create more shares than you issue publicly; the remainder goes to the current controlling interests. When Facebook solicited outside investment (before it went public), that's basically what happened; the original founders were issued additional shares to maintain controlling interests (though not as significant), balancing the issue of new shares to the investors. The \"\"ideal\"\" form of this is a \"\"stock split\"\"; the company simply multiplies the number of shares it has outstanding by X, and issues X-1 additional shares to each current holder of one share. This effectively divides the price of one share by X, lowering the barrier to purchase a share and thus hopefully driving up demand for the shares overall by making it easier for the average Joe Investor to get their foot in the door. However, issuing shares to controlling interests increases the total number of shares available, decreasing the market value of public shares that much more and reducing the amount of money the company can make from the stock offering.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6812554ac6a6fe2c714ab6e6f19a657c", "text": "\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e44598dada0a8ebf91496f7b40fd3b2c", "text": "Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bc624692d06ad64e7f32232c19638f6", "text": "Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies. You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2", "text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f214c7896e53e4033f83168ea3ed4c4", "text": "The value of a share depends on the value of the company, which involves a lot more than the value of its assets -- it requires making decisions about what you think will happen to the company in the future. That's inherently not something that can be reduced to a single formula, at least not unless you can figure out how to represent your guesses and your confidence in them in the formula ... and even if you could do all that it would only say what you think the stock is worth; others will be using different numbers and legitimately get different results. Disagreement over value is what the stock market is all about, I'm afraid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d8dbc7258bcc02dbd72eb71e62cbbe", "text": "There isn't a single universal way to reference a stock, there are 4 major identifiers with many different flavours of exchange ticker (see xkcd:Standards) I believe CUSIPs and ISINs represent a specific security rather than a specific listed instrument. This means you can have two listed instruments with one ISIN but different SEDOLs because they are listed in different places. The difference is subtle but causes problems with settlement Specifically on your question (sorry I got sidetracked) take a look at CQS Symbol convention to see what everything means", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85fcd7358c729ce864e5e79fdaf6b066", "text": "Go to http://www.isincodes.net/, and enter your data. For example entering Alphabet gives you the ISIN US02079K1079 (for standard US shares). If you want to understand the number format (and build them yourself), check wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Securities_Identification_Number", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2227038c0029b9fdd52d89545028260a", "text": "The last column in the source data is volume (the number of stocks that was exchanged during the day), and it also has a value of zero for that day, meaning that nobody bought or sold the stocks on that day. And since the prices are prices of transactions (the first and the last one on a particular day, and the ones with the highest/lowest price), the prices cannot be established, and are irrelevant as there was not a single transaction on that day. Only the close price is assumed equal to its previous day counterpart because this is the most important value serving as a basis to determine the daily price change (and we assume no change in this case). Continuous-line charts also use this single value. Bar and candle charts usually display a blank space for a day where no trade occurred.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34e6df966186974f602a13e3ae0d3721", "text": "A share of stock is an asset not much different than any other asset. If the share is being held in a joint account, it's being jointly owned. If the share is being held by a company with multiple owners then the share is owned by the various owners. If you're married and in a community property state, then it's technically owned by both parties.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb", "text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b731769f380d1dbc187594d1070e9701", "text": "I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d3de2e3532c4bf6ad539bc232c06e42", "text": "If the first one is literally a company name, then 'company name' is fine. However, companies can issue shares more than once, and those shares might be traded separately, so you could have 'Google ordinary', 'Google preference', 'Google ordinary issue B'. Seeing the name spelled out in full like this isn't as common as just the company name, but I'd normally see it referred to as 'display name'. The second one is 'symbol', 'ticker', 'ID', and others. Globally, there are many incompatible ways of referring to a stock, depending on where it's listed (companies can have dual listings, and different exchanges have different conventions), and who's referring to it (Bloomberg and Reuters have different sets of IDs, with no predictable mapping between them). So there's no one shorthand name, and the word you use depends on the context. However, 'symbol' or 'ticker' is normally fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fba69109c372ce3a7f882968dd7b3e36", "text": "Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d7386d49ee226421e6968ade98135234	Why is there inconsistent returns difference between direct and regular Mutual Funds?	[ { "docid": "70757dd5682c2ad8c2a0363b06a1d776", "text": "If this is the case, then shouldn't the difference between their annualized returns be same year on year? In general yes, however there difference has a compounding effect. i.e. if the difference if 5% first year, this money is invested and it would generate more of the said returns. However in reality as the corpus size of direct funds is very small, there difference is not very significant as other factors come into play.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b61374969f9dc4f5ce9a528b6d896cb", "text": "\"(This answer refers to the US investment landscape) I'm not sure your classification of funds as direct and regular accurately reflects the nature of the mutual fund industry. It's not the funds themselves that are \"\"direct\"\" or \"\"regular.\"\" Rather it's the way an investor chooses to invest in them. If you make the investment yourself through your brokerage account, you may say it's a direct investment. If you pay a financial advisor to do this for you, it's \"\"regular.\"\" For a given fund, you could make the investment yourself or you could use an advisor. Note that many funds have various share classes. Share classes may be accessed in different ways. The institutional class may be accessible through your 401(k) or perhaps not even there, for example. The premium class may require a certain minimum investment. Some classes will have a front-end-load or back-end-load. Each of these will have a different expense ratio and fees even though the money ends up in the same portfolio. These expenses are, by law, publicly available in the prospectus and in numerous other places. Share classes with higher fees will earn less each year after fees, just as you suggest. Your intuition is correct on this point. Now, there is one fee to be aware of that funds either have or do not have. That's a 12b-1 fee. This fee is a kickback to financial advisors who funnel your money into their fund. If you use a financial advisor, he or she will likely put your money into these funds because they have a financial incentive to do so. That way they get paid twice: once by you and once by the mutual fund. It has been robustly shown in the finance academic literature that funds without this fee dominate (are better in some ways and in no ways worse than) funds with this fee. I suppose you could say that funds and share classes with a 12b-1 fee were designed for \"\"regular\"\" investment and those without were designed for \"\"direct\"\" but that doesn't mean you can't invest in a 12b-1 fee fund directly nor that you can't twist your advisor's arm into getting you into a good fund without a 12b-1. Unfortunately, if you have this level of knowledge, then you probably don't need a financial advisor.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1af8f838d7041ba6c1066ea564d306ff", "text": "\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAVshares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad7c5e0f5f9b741f3006af9d4840d41e", "text": "\"There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification. To build a diverse portfolio \"\"manually\"\" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort. If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\"; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs. If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell. If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees. With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies. In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier. Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank. It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time. All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares. The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small. Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "140b6fef7c8594dd3f234a710c425ab0", "text": "\"YES.. Management fees cut directly into your profits. A fund which achieves 8% growth but costs 1% to maintain delivers only 7% to you. Compounded over years, even a relatively small difference can add up to a significant amount of money. This is one of the advantages index funds have. They may not be as \"\"sophisticated\"\" as human-managed funds, but their expense ratio is so much lower that the end result for the investor is often as good as or better than the more expensive products. In fact, at least one study found that, for each category they researched, low expense ratio was a better predictor of good return on investment than anything else they looked at. That doesn't mean cheapest is always best or most expensive is always worst .... but it does mean you should be very, very sure an expensive fund really is that much better before choosing it. And sticking with simple index funds may be a perfectly reasonable choice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f08eaa49bccd9597553e00a23f7716", "text": "\"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61f292c177b78daa76fd032500f0bff7", "text": "This is a Vanguard-specific difference in the sense that in the US, Vanguard is a leader in lowering management fees for the mutual funds that they offer. Of course, several US mutual fund companies have also been lowering the expense ratio of their mutual funds in recent years because more and more investors have been paying attention to this particular performance parameter, and opting for funds that have low expense ratios. But many US funds have not reduced their expense ratios very much and continue to have expense ratios of 1% or even higher. For example, American Funds Developing World Growth and Income Fund (DWGAX) charges a 1.39% expense ratio while their 2060 Retirement Fund (AANTX) charges 1.12% (the funds also have a 5.75% sales charge); Putnam Capital Opportunities Fund charges 1.91% for their Class C shares, and so on. Many funds with high expense ratios (and sometimes sales charges as well) show up as options in far too many 401(k) plans, especially 401(k) plans of small companies, because small companies do not enjoy economies of scale and do not have much negotiating power when dealing with 401(k) custodians and administrators.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b5a4120ece68632246dcb71b65d5eb9", "text": "I think you are mixing up forward looking statements with the actual results. The funds objective The fund invests primarily in stocks that tend to offer current dividends. It focuses on high-quality companies that have prospects for long-term total returns as a result of their ability to grow earnings and their willingness to increase dividends over time Obviously in 1993 quite a few companies paid the dividends and hence VDIGX was able to give dividends. Over the period of years in some years its given more and in some years less. For example the Year 2000 it gave $ 1.26, 1999 it gave $ 1.71 and in 1998 it gave $ 1.87 The current economic conditions are such that companies are not making huge profts and the one's that are making prefer not to distribute dividends and hold on to cash as it would help survive the current economic conditions. So just to clarify this particular funds objective is to invest in companies that would give dividends which is then passed on to fund holders. This fund does not sell appreciated stocks to convert it into dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68eb08f84bf9bb435c3a622500d4f932", "text": "The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2ec640fa7f7a0b70da50dfc98da4ee5", "text": "\"To add on to the other answers, in asking why funds have different price points one might be asking why stocks aren't normalized so a unit price of $196 in one stock can be directly compared to the same price in another stock. While this might not make sense with AAPL vs. GOOG (it would be like comparing apples to oranges, pun intended, not to mention how would two different companies ever come to such an agreement) it does seem like it would make more sense when tracking an index. And in fact less agreement between different funds would be required as some \"\"natural\"\" price points exist such as dividing by 100 (like some S&P funds do). However, there are a couple of reasons why two different funds might price their shares of the same underlying index differently. Demand - If there are a lot of people wanting the issue, more shares might be issued at a lower price. Or, there might be a lot of demand centered on a certain price range. Pricing - shares that are priced higher will find fewer buyers, because it makes it harder to buy round lots (100 shares at $100/share is $10,000 while at $10/share it's only $1000). While not everyone buys stock in lots, it's important if you do anything with (standardized) options on the stock because they are always acting on lots. In addition, even if you don't buy round lots a higher price makes it harder to buy in for a specific amount because each unit share has a greater chance to be further away from your target amount. Conversely, shares that are priced too low will also find fewer buyers, because some holders have minimum price requirements due to low price (e.g. penny) stocks tending to be more speculative and volatile. So, different funds tracking the same index might pick different price points to satisfy demand that is not being filled by other funds selling at a different price point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec6a3464c58d2dafda4f0dc6ea41e07e", "text": "\"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26e7b7fc325f90088aafee5f6383817d", "text": "The literal answer to your question is that a number of different types of mutual funds did not have significant downturns in 2008. Money Market Funds are intended to always preserve capital. VMMXX made 2.77% in 2008. It was a major scandal broke the buck, that its holders took a 3% loss. Inverse funds, which go up when the market goes down, obviously did well that year (RYARX), but if you have a low risk tolerance, that's obviously not what you're looking for. (and they have other problems as well when held long-term) But you're a 24-year-old talking about your retirement funds, you should have a much longer time horizon, at least 30 years. Over a period that long, stocks have never had negative real (inflation-adjusted) returns, dating back at least to the civil war. If you look at the charts here or here, you can see that despite the risk in any individual year, as the period grows longer, the average return for the period gets tighter and tighter. If you look at the second graph here, you see that 2011 was the first time since the civil war that the trailing 30-year return on t-bills exceeded that for stocks, and 1981-2011 was period that saw bond yields drop almost continuously, leading to steady rise in bond prices. Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, everything we've seen historically suggests that the risk of a broad stock-market portfolio held for 30 years is not that large, and it should make up the bulk of your holdings. For example, Vanguard's Target retirement 2055 fund is 90% in stocks (US + international), and only 10% in bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cc2004c5e485e8d2544ea370bc1f2dc", "text": "So basically they are trying to see two things. One is whether prices are correlated to each other for long periods of time as a preliminary study suggested (which would go against efficient markets hypothesis, since you could use that info to game the market) or if that result is illusory and the long term returns are close to a standard normal distribution which would follow the effiecient markets hypo. The second thing I don't follow as well, but they're trying to solve the first thing so that they can then look at why, when they look at returns at different time scales, (1minute, one hour, one week), the model which had been proposed for these returns is not supported by the data (the first thing). They say that the old model (Levy) says that the variability should not be the same at the different time scales, but the data suggests that it is. So they then propose a modification of the old Levy model, and say that it would also explain the strange first result they looked at. (that prices are correlated for longer periods). That probably doesn't make any sense, but you might have more luck by posting in /r/statistics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7073c8abdac940794381ca8c2ea69bbd", "text": "You are comparing apples and oranges: the charts show the capital appreciation excluding dividends. If you include dividends and calculate a total return over that period you see VSMAX up 132% vs. FSEVX up 129%, i.e. quite close. That residual difference is possibly due to a performance difference between the two benchmarks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc", "text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "479f302f9d64a635ca797a765b096a3f", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.aei.org/publication/warren-buffett-wins-1m-bet-made-a-decade-ago-that-the-sp-500-stock-index-would-outperform-hedge-funds/) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ** > MP: Specifically, Buffett offered to bet that over a ten-year period from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2017, the S&P 500 index would outperform a portfolio of funds of hedge funds when performance is measured on a basis net of fee. > A fund that tracks the S&P 500 fund might have an expense ratio of as little as 0.02%. MP: The chart above shows the annual returns on the S&P 500 index and the average annual returns on a comprehensive index of thousands of hedge funds maintained by Barclay over the period of Buffett&#039;s bet: From 2008 through August of this year. > Funds of hedge funds accentuate this cost problem because their fees are superimposed on the large fees charged by the hedge funds in which the funds of funds are invested. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/71a3oo/warren_buffett_wins_1m_bet_made_a_decade_ago_that/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~213478 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: fund^#1 hedge^#2 index^#3 bet^#4 fee^#5\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8114e015edb54e3510c3c0eee2e7bb60	What retirement plans/options should i pick for a relatively unstable career path?	[ { "docid": "b784ec1dea306580bf823cccf1b7d1b8", "text": "\"Your retirement plan shouldn't necessarily be dictated by your perceived employment risks. If you're feeling insecure about your short-term job longevity and mid-career prospects, you will likely benefit from a thoughtful and robust emergency fund plan. Your retirement plan is really designed to fund your life after work, so the usual advice to contribute as much as you can as early as you can applies either way. While a well-funded retirement portfolio will help you feel generally more secure in the long run (and worst case can be used earlier), a good emergency fund will do more to address your near-term concerns. Both retirement and emergency fund planning are fundamental to a comprehensive personal finance plan. This post on StackExchange has some basic info about your retirement options. Given your spare income, you should be able to fully fund an IRA and your 401K every year with some left over. Check the fees in your 401K to determine if you really want to fully fund the 401K past employer matching. There are several good answers and info about that here. Low-cost mutual funds are a good choice for starting your IRA. There is a lot of different advice about emergency funds (check here) ranging from x months salary in savings to detailed planning for each of your expenses. Regardless of which method you chose, it is important to think about your personal risk tolerance and create a plan that addresses your personal needs. It's difficult to live life and perform well at work if you're always worried about your situation. A good emergency plan should go a long way toward calming those fears. Your concern about reaching mid-life and becoming obsolete or unable to keep up in your career may be premature. Of course your mind, body, and your abilities will change over the years, but it is very difficult to predict where you will be, what you will be doing, and whether your experience will offset any potential decrease in your ability to keep up. It's good to think ahead and consider the \"\"what-ifs\"\", but keep in mind that those scenarios are not preordained. There isn't anything special about being 40 that will force you into a different line of work if you don't want to switch.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cfb4b2995fae4503b5b585c73ff1c7fc", "text": "I have considered doing the same thing. One idea I have tossed around is investing in a REIT. A REIT is kind of like a Mutual Fund for real-estate. They normally own a large portfolio of real-estate (perhaps apartments, or commercial space, etc) and by owning a share you get some of the upward swing, without the hassle of ownership (i.e. you can sell instantaneously). The REIT sometimes handles the whole lifecycle of property management: finding renters, collecting rent, maintenance, etc. There are a lot of public REITs in the US that you can buy. Another option might be to buy shares in a Home Building company like KB Homes. Yet another option that ties onto your lack of retirement savings is the little known fact that after tax Roth IRA contributions can be withdrawn without penalty! Since 401ks can be rolled over into a Roth IRA (normally you have to leave your employer), in theory a 401k contributions can also be cashed out you just need to be careful about tracking your contributions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4562815066c5bab4d0cdee26be14c660", "text": "\"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8896bbf28ca415182cc04b43e45e9487", "text": "\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \"\"5-year plan\"\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \"\"applications\"\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \"\"pour\"\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \"\"buckets\"\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "202c53d0be008d1d7d0ed008a4c644c8", "text": "\"Are you not allowed the y5 option? I'm no guru, but one thing that sticks out to me in that plan is the vesting period of 5yrs as opposed to 10, so the money is \"\"yours\"\" in half the time....so if after 5yrs, you find a better gig, you can roll those benefits into another account and manage them on your own (or just leave and draw on them when you are eligible) Then again, knowing that many municipalities are in shit shape due to their pension benefit liabilities, they may be pushing to the longer vesting period to a) encourage you to stay employed there and/or b) allow them to keep the money should you leave before that 10yr period Like I said, though- I'm def no guru, and that is only one aspect of these plans. I'd personally reach out to a financial planner so they can game it all out for you and equip you with the info to make the best choice\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "473bea867c1ec882bb7dd4adaa25a42a", "text": "Variable Annuities would be one option though there are SEC warnings about them, for an option that is tax-deferred and intended to be used for long-term investing such as retirement. There is a bit of a cost to gain the tax-deferral which may not always make them worthwhile.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70", "text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0ff94314ba543a910712a75a7fb6751", "text": "BrenBarn did a great job explaining your options so I won't rehash any of that. I know you said that you don't want to save for retirement yet, but I'm going to risk answering that you should anyway. Specifically, I think you should consider a Roth IRA. When it comes to tax advantaged retirement accounts, once the contribution period for a tax year ends, there's no way to make up for it. For example in 2015 you may contribute up to $5,500 to your IRA. You can make those contributions up until tax day of the following year (April 15th, 2016). After that, you cannot contribute money towards 2015 again. So each year that goes by, you're losing out on some potential to contribute. As for why I think a Roth IRA specifically could work well for you: I'm advocating this because I think it's a good balance. You put away some money in a retirement account now, when it will have the most impact on your future retirement assets, taking advantage of a time you will never have again. At a low cost custodian like Vanguard, you can open an IRA with as little as $1,000 to start and choose from excellent fund options that meet your risk requirements. If you end up deciding that you really want that money for a car or a house or beer money, you can withdraw any of the contributions without fear of penalty or additional tax. But if you decide you don't really need to take that money back out, you've contributed to your retirement for a tax year you likely wouldn't have otherwise, and wouldn't be able to make up for later when you have more than enough to max out an IRA each year. I also want to stress that you should have a liquid emergency fund (in a savings or checking account) to deal with unexpected emergencies before funding something like this. But after that, if you have no specific goal for your savings and you don't know for sure you'll actually need to spend it in the near future, funding a Roth IRA is worth considering in my opinion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44fbb65d9903574d648335fb707ac6dd", "text": "I think you need to understand the options better before you go around calling anything worthless... $11k in a 1% savings account gets you just over $100 each year. Obviously you're not buying Ferraris with your returns but it's $100 more than your checking account will pay you. And, you're guaranteed to get your money back. I think a CD ladder is a great way to store your emergency fund. The interest rate on a CD is typically a bit better than a regular savings account, though the money is locked away and while we seem to be on the cusp of a rate increase it might not be the best time to put the money in jail. Generally there is some sort of fee or lost interest from cashing a CD early. You're still guaranteed to get your money back. Stock trading is probably a terrible idea. If you want some market exposure I'd take half of the money and buy a low expense S&P ETF, I wouldn't put my whole savings if I were you (or if I were me). Many large brokers have an S&P ETF option that you can generally buy with no commission and no loads. Vanguard is a great option VOO, Schwab has an S&P mutual fund SWPPX, and there are others. Actively trading individual stocks is a great way to let commissions and fees erode your account. There are some startup alternatives with lower fees, but personally I would stay away from individual stock picking unless you are in school for Finance and have some interest in paying attention and you're ready to possibly never see the money again. You're not guaranteed to get your money back. There are also money market accounts. These will typically pay some interest based on exposing your funds to some risk. It can be a bit better return than a savings account, but I probably wouldn't bother. An IRA (ROTH and Traditional) is just an account wrapper that offers certain tax benefits while placing certain restrictions on the use of some or all of the money until you reach retirement age. As a college student you should probably be more concerned about an emergency fund or traveling than retirement savings, though some here may disagree with me. With your IRA you can buy CDs or annuities, or stocks and ETFs or any other kind of security. Depending on what you buy inside the IRA, you might not be guaranteed to get your money back. First you need to figure out what you'd like to use the money for. Then, you need to determine when you'd need the money for that use. Then, you need to determine if you can sleep at night while your stock account fluctuates a few percent each day. If you can't, or you don't have answers for these questions, a savings account is a really low friction/low risk place store money and combat inflation while you come up with answers for those questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5bdd92b794541937b4f697a658e0170", "text": "\"General advice is to keep 6 months worth of income liquid -- in your case, you might want to leave 1 year liquid since, even though your income is stable now, it is not static (i.e., you're not drawing salary from an employer). The rest of it? If you don't plan on using it for any big purchases in the next 5 or so years, invest it. If you don't, you will probably lose money in the long term due to inflation (how's that for a risk? :). There are plenty of options for the risk averse, many of which handily beat inflation, though without knowing your country of residence, it's hard to say. In all likelihood, though, you'll want to invest in index funds -- such as ETFs -- that basically track industries, rather than individual companies. This is basically free portfolio diversity -- they lose money only when an entire sector loses value. Though even with funds of this type, you still want to ensure you purchase multiple different funds that track different industries. Don't just toss all of your funds into an IT index, for example. Before buying, just look at the history of the fund and make sure it has had a general upward trajectory since 2008 (I've bought a few ETFs that remained static...not what we're looking for in an investment!). If the brokerage account you choose doesn't offer commission free trades on any of the funds you want (personally, I use Schwab and their ETF portfolio), try to \"\"buy in bulk.\"\" That way you're not spending so much on trades. There are other considerations (many indexed funds have high management costs, but if you go with ETFs, they don't, and there's the question of dividends, etc), but that is getting into the weeds as far as investing knowledge is concerned. Beyond that, just keep in mind it'll take 1-2 weeks for you to see that money if you need it, and there's obviously no guarantee it'll be there if you do need it for an emergency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82c7493b748407a298bceb7eb6c7650f", "text": "\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "135219ce72904b986e4b53ffa398e573", "text": "Could you talk to the company you currently work for and see what your boss recommends? She or he would probably have a deep understanding of the corporate structure and would be able to help you figure out your path since they know you personally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78fd0dd4f790f86621a72a8b8910ec63", "text": "Ending up with nothing is an unlikely situation unless you invest 100% in a company stock and the company goes under. In order to give you a good answer we need to see what options your employer gives for 401k investments. The best advice would be to take a list of all options that your employer allows and talk with a financial advisor. Here are a few options that you may or may not have as an option from an employer: Definitions from wikipedia: A target-date fund – also known as a lifecycle, dynamic-risk or age-based fund – is a collective investment scheme, usually a mutual fund, designed to provide a simple investment solution through a portfolio whose asset allocation mix becomes more conservative as the target date (usually retirement) approaches. An index fund or index tracker is a collective investment scheme (usually a mutual fund or exchange-traded fund) that aims to replicate the movements of an index of a specific financial market... An exchange-traded fund (ETF) is an investment fund traded on stock exchanges, much like stocks.[1] An ETF holds assets such as stocks, commodities, or bonds, and trades close to its net asset value over the course of the trading day. Most ETFs track an index, such as a stock index or bond index. ETFs may be attractive as investments because of their low costs, tax efficiency, and stock-like features. The capital stock (or stock) of an incorporated business constitutes the equity stake of its owners. Which one can you lose everything in? You can lose everything in stocks by the company going under. In Index funds the entire market that it follows would have to collapse. The chances are slim here since the index made up of several companies. The S&P 500 is made up of 500 leading companies publicly traded in the U.S. A Pacific-Europe index such as MSCI EAFE Index is made up of 907 companies. The chances of losing everything in an ETF are also slim. The ETF that follows the S&P 500 is made up of 500 companies. An Pacific-Europe ETF such as MSCI EAFE ETF is made up of 871 companies. Target date funds are also slim to lose everything. Target date funds are made up of several companies like indexes and etfs and also mix in bonds and other investments depending on your age. What would I recommend? I would recommend the Index funds and/or ETFs that have the lowest fee that make up the following strategy for your age: Why Not Target Date Funds or Stocks? Target date funds have high fees. Later in life when you are closer to retirement you may want to add bonds to your portfolio. At that time if this is the only option to add bonds then you can change your elections. Stocks are too risky for you with your current knowledge. If your company matches by buying their stock you may want to consider reallocating that stock at certain points to your Index funds or ETFs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38209351c883c0ccdec99ec8f3586956", "text": "\"I agree that you should CONSIDER a shares based dividend income SIPP, however unless you've done self executed trading before, enough to understand and be comfortable with it and know what you're getting into, I would strongly suggest that as you are now near retirement, you have to appreciate that as well as the usual risks associated with markets and their constituent stocks and shares going down as well as up, there is an additional risk that you will achieve sub optimal performance because you are new to the game. I took up self executed trading in 2008 (oh yes, what a great time to learn) and whilst I might have chosen a better time to get into it, and despite being quite successful over all, I have to say it's the hardest thing I've ever done! The biggest reason it'll be hard is emotionally, because this pension pot is all the money you've got to live off until you die right? So, even though you may choose safe quality stocks, when the world economy goes wrong it goes wrong, and your pension pot will still plummet, somewhat at least. Unless you \"\"beat the market\"\", something you should not expect to do if you haven't done it before, taking the rather abysmal FTSE100 as a benchmark (all quality stocks, right? LOL) from last Aprils highs to this months lows, and projecting that performance forwards to the end of March, assuming you get reasonable dividends and draw out £1000 per month, your pot could be worth £164K after one year. Where as with normal / stable / long term market performance (i.e. no horrible devaluation of the market) it could be worth £198K! Going forwards from those 2 hypothetical positions, assuming total market stability for the rest of your life and the same reasonable dividend payouts, this one year of devaluation at the start of your pensions life is enough to reduce the time your pension pot can afford to pay out £1000 per month from 36 years to 24 years. Even if every year after that devaluation is an extra 1% higher return it could still only improve to 30 years. Normally of course, any stocks and shares investment is a long term investment and long term the income should be good, but pensions usually diversify into less and less risky investments as they get close to maturity, holding a certain amount of cash and bonds as well, so in my view a SIPP with stocks and shares should be AT MOST just a part of your strategy, and if you can't watch your pension pot payout term shrink from 26 years to 24 years hold your nerve, then maybe a SIPP with stocks and shares should be a smaller part! When you're dependent on your SIPP for income a market crash could cause you to make bad decisions and lose even more income. All that said now, even with all the new taxes and loss of tax deductible costs, etc, I think your property idea might not be a bad one. It's just diversification at the end of the day, and that's rarely a bad thing. I really DON'T think you should consider it to be a magic bullet though, it's not impossible to get a 10% yield from a property, but usually you won't. I assume you've never done buy to let before, so I would encourage you to set up a spread sheet and model it carefully. If you are realistic then you should find that you have to find really REALLY exceptional properties to get that sort of return, and you won't find them all the time. When you do your spread sheet, make sure you take into account all the one off buying costs, build a ledger effectively, so that you can plot all your costs, income and on going balance, and then see what payouts your model can afford over a reasonable number of years (say 10). Take the sum of those payouts and compare them against the sum you put in to find the whole thing. You must include budget for periodic minor and less frequent larger renovations (your tenants WON'T respect your property like you would, I promise you), land lord insurance (don't omit it unless you maintain capability to access a decent reserve (at least 10-20K say, I mean it, it's happened to me, it cost me 10K once to fix up a place after the damage and negligence of a tenant, and it definitely could have been worse) but I don't really recommend you insuring yourself like this, and taking on the inherent risk), budget for plumber and electrician call out, or for appropriate schemes which include boiler maintenance, etc (basically more insurance). Also consider estate agent fees, which will be either finders fees and/or 10% management fees if you don't manage them yourself. If you manage it yourself, fine, but consider the possibility that at some point someone might have to do that for you... either temporarily or permanently. Budget for a couple of months of vacancy every couple of years is probably prudent. Don't forget you have to pay utilities and council tax when its vacant. For leaseholds don't forget ground rent. You can get a better return on investment by taking out a mortgage (because you make money out of the underlying ROI and the mortgage APR) (this is usually the only way you can approach 10% yield) but don't forget to include the cost of mortgage fees, valuation fees, legal fees, etc, every 2 years (or however long)... and repeat your model to make sure it is viable when interest rates go up a few percent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7617e14cd3d865fab29e1444486990d8", "text": "Well i dont know of any calculator but you can do the following 1) Google S&P 500 chart 2) Find out whats the S&P index points (P1) on the first date 3) Find out whats the S&P index points (P2) on the second date 4) P1 - P2 = result", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
af28574697e4e86adb27af311c82dc74	How to Create Personal Balance Sheet and Budget Plan for Several Accounts	[ { "docid": "e398e303fb3180307362ca764a3a80b9", "text": "\"As your financial situation becomes more complex, it becomes increasingly more difficult to keep track of everything with a simple spreadsheet. It is much easier to work with software that is specifically designed for personal finances. A good program will allow you to keep track of as many accounts as you want. A great program will completely separate the different account balances (location of the money) from the budget category balances (purpose of the money). Let me explain: When you set up the software, you will enter in all of your different bank accounts with their balances. Perhaps you have three savings accounts and two checking accounts. It doesn't matter. When you are done entering those, the software will total them up, and the next job you have is assigning this money into different budget categories: your spending plan. For example, you might put some of it into a grocery category, some into an entertainment category, some will be assigned to pay your next car insurance bill, and some will be an emergency fund. (These categories are completely customizable, and your budget can be as broad or as detailed as you wish.) When you deposit your paycheck, you assign that new income into budget categories as well. It doesn't matter at this point which accounts your money are located in; the only thing that matters is that you own this money and you have access to it. Now, you might want to use a certain account for a certain budget category, but you are not required to do so. (For example, your grocery category money will probably be in your checking account, since you will be spending from it regularly. Your emergency fund will hopefully be in an account that earns a little higher interest.) Once you take this approach, you might find you don't need as many bank accounts as you thought you did, because the software does the job of separating your money into different \"\"accounts\"\" for different purposes. I've written before about the different categories of personal finance software. YNAB, Mvelopes, and EveryDollar are three examples of software that will take this approach of separating the concepts of the bank account and the budget category.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0c509b1b72a4cbf876193786938eb9a1", "text": "Use one journal entry, and split the expenses into the appropriate accounts. This can happen even if you never mix business and personal on the same receipt: say you order office supplies (which where I live are immediately deductible as an expense) and software or hardware (which must be depreciated because they are assets) on the same order. We have an account called Proprietors Loan which represents money the company is lending to the humans who own it, or that the humans are lending to the company. Were I to pay for my personal lunch on a business credit card, it would go through that account, increasing the amount the company has lent me or decreasing the amount I have lent it. Similarly if I made a business purchase with a personal card it would go through that account in the other direction. Where I live, I can lend my company all the money I want any time, but if the company lends me money there can't be an outstanding balance over the corporate year end. If you make two credit card entries of 5 and 10 when you go to reconcile your accounts it will be harder because you'll have to realize they together match the single 15 line on your statement. Making a single entry (your A option) will make reconciling your statement much easier. And that way, you'll probably reconcile your statements, which is vital to knowing you actually recorded everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b8aec839c09dcb7999a5de7634ce90b", "text": "\"We use mint for just that. We have a \"\"shared\"\" account. We each have the mobile app and share the same pin for the application (not our phones -- you can set a pin in the settings on the application). Thus we each share a login to the site, where we have setup all of our accounts. In the \"\"Your Profile\"\" link at the top of the page, you may select the Email & Alerts option. From here you may add a second e-mail account. This way if you go over a budget or have a bill upcoming each of you will get a notification. We have setup budgeting through the web site, and either of us can modify the budget via logging in.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bb4c6f31eaea21b14c16f88eaab362c", "text": "\"One easy way to monitor costs in QuickBooks is to establish sub-bank accounts. For example, you may have an asset account called \"\"State Bank\"\" numbered 11100 (asset, cash and cash equivalents, bank). Convert this to a parent account for a middle school by making subaccounts such as At budget formation, transfer $800 from Operations 11110 to Family Fun Committee 11130. Then write all checks for Family Fun from the Family Fun 11130 subaccount. For fundraising, transfer $0 at budget formation to the X Grade accounts. Do deposit all grade-level receipts into the appropriate grade-level subaccounts and write all checks for the grades from the grade-level subaccounts. The downside to the above is that reconciling the check book each month is slightly more complicated because you will be reconciling one monthly paper bank statement to multiple virtual subaccounts. Also, you must remember to never write a check from the parent \"\"State Bank\"\" 11100, and instead write the checks from the appropriate subaccounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf7b6129f6a8a9145f65dc426f9870e", "text": "PocketSmith is another tool you might like to consider. No personal banking details are required, but you can upload your transactions in a variety of formats. Pocketsmith is interesting because it really focus on your future cash flow, and the main feature of the interface is around having a calendar(s) where you easily enter one off or repetitive expenses/income. http://www.pocketsmith.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f4c85a0ec524834a22e73607839809b", "text": "I wrote a small Excel-based bookkeeping system that handles three things: income, expenses, and tax (including VAT, which you Americans can rename GST). Download it here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535", "text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4b1183f1d3b66ff43bccc63bd214d7e", "text": "\"Ditto Nate Eldredge in many ways, but let me add some other thoughts. BTW there are not four types of account, but five. You're forgetting equity, also called capital. Would it be possible to design an accounting system that does not have 5 types of accounts, maybe is simpler in other ways, and is internally consistent and logical? I'm sure it is. But what's the advantage? As Nate points out, the existing system has been in use for hundreds of years. Lots of people know how it works and understand it. I'd add: People have long since worked out how to deal with all the common situations and 99% of the odd cases you're likely to hit. If you invent your own system, you're starting from scratch. You'd have to come up with conventions to handle all sorts of situations. How do I record buying a consumable with cash? How do I record buying a capital asset with credit? How do I record paying off debts? How do I record depreciation? Etc etc. If you worked at it long and hard enough and you're a reasonably bright guy, maybe you could come up with solutions to all the problems. But why? If you were approaching this saying, \"\"I see these flaws in the way accounting is done today. I have an idea for a new, better way to do accounting\"\", I'd say good luck, you have a lot of work ahead of you working out all the details to make a fully functioning system, and then persuading others to use it, but if you really do have a better idea, maybe you can revolutionize the world of accounting. But, \"\"The present system is too much trouble and I don't want to bother to learn it\"\" ... I think that's a mistake. The work involved in inventing your own system is going to end up being way more than what it would take to learn the existing system. As to, Aren't liabilities a lot like assets? Well, in a sense I suppose. A credit card is like a checking account in that you can use it to pay for things. But they're very different, too. From an accounting point of view, with a checking account you buy something and then the money is gone, so there's one transaction: reduce cash and increase office supplies or whatever. But with a credit card there has to be a second transaction, when you pay off the charge: So, step 1, increase debt and increase office supplies; step 2, decrease debt and decrease cash. Credit cards charge interest, well you don't pay interest to use your own cash. Etc. One of the beauties of double-entry book-keeping is that every transaction involves a debit and a credit of equal amounts (or a set of debits and credits where the total of the debits equals the total of the credits). If you combine assets and liabilities into, whatever you call it, \"\"balance accounts\"\" say, then some transactions would involve a matching debit and credit while others would involve a positive debit and a matching negative debit and no credit. I'm sure you could make such a system work, but one of the neat built-in protections against error is lost. There's a very logical distinction between things that you have or that others owe you, and things that you owe to others. It makes a lot of sense to want to list them separately and manage them separately. I think you'd pretty quickly find yourself saying, \"\"well, we have two types of balance accounts, those that represent things we have and which normally have positive balances, which we list on chart A, and those that represent things we owe and which normally have negative balances, which we list on chart B\"\". And before you know it you've just reinvented assets and liabilities.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3d454d4eac15d202c95e8a03bd20526", "text": "I use GNUCash. It's a bit more like Quickbooks than plain Quicken, but it's not all that complicated. Probably the most difficult part is understanding the idea of income accounts. Benefits: For short term planning, I use scheduled transactions. If I'm spending more than I have, it'll show up here. Every paycheck and dollar spent or invested is recorded with the exact date I anticipate it will happen, 30 days in advance. If that would overdraw my checking account, the Future Minimum Balance field will go negative and red. This lets me move float to higher interest savings and retirement funds, and avoids overdraft fees or other mishaps. By looking 30 days ahead in detail, I have enough time to transfer from illiquid assets. For longer term planning, I keep a spreadsheet around that plans out annual expenses. If I'm spending more than I earn, it shows up here. I estimate everything: expenses, savings, taxes, and income. I need this because I have a lot of expenses that are far less frequent than monthly or paycheck-ly. The beauty of it is that once I've got it in place, I can duplicate the sheet and consider tweaks for say taking a new job or moving, or even just changing an insurance plan (probably less relevant for those with access to NHS). Especially when moving to take a new job, it's not as straightforward as comparing salaries, and thus having a document for the status quo to start from lets you focus on the parts that changed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5eeced770d8f07df301006a0c4e190ef", "text": "\"I don't know if this is \"\"valid\"\" from a bookkeeping/accounting standpoint, but I'm just trying to keep records for myself so this works for me unless someone has another suggestion. I created two Expense accounts for the HSA (Roth, etc would work the same way): (\"\"CY\"\" meaning current year.) When I make a $50 contribution, I enter the following splits: When you look at this in the Accounts tab, it shows the parent account with a zero balance (because the subaccount balance is positive and the parent account is negative). The subaccount has the balance accumulated so far; this lets me see the YTD contributions to my HSAs. At the end of the year I will make a closing transaction in the opposite direction (for whatever the total balance of the CY account is): This will zero-balance these two accounts. The only complication I see remaining is the issue of making contributions for the prior year during the January-April time frame. I don't generally make current-year contributions followed by prior-year contributions, so I can just wait to enter the closing transaction until I know I'm done with prior-year contributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d50c2156d049c162fca11446aa0de00", "text": "If held in one savings account, how can I easily manage what percentage is planned for which purpose? I used a spreadsheet for some years, but found it clumsy for everyday use. Thus I wrote some software which my wife and I use for our short-term as well as long-term planning, available at http://budgeter.sourceforge.net. It specifically helps with splitting the money in one or several accounts into logical categories. (The software is not the most user-friendly ever, so there may be better suggestions that follow, but it works well for us. Please feel free to suggest improvements to it as well.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "279fb372957a393ffe2b63dcb82324ed", "text": "\"You don't want to set up your investment account as a savings or spending (budget) account. There are a couple of reasons. First, investment account balances change daily based on the market. If you set it up as a budget account, then your budget category balances would need to have money added or removed from them daily as the market value changes. Second, because you are investing for retirement, this money will be untouchable for many years; there is no need to include that in your spending budget. Instead, enter your monthly investment amount as an expense transaction (not a transfer to another budget account). If, for example, you are sending $400 per month to your retirement account, just enter that as a monthly $400 expense out of your checking account, assigning it to a Retirement category. That money then leaves your budget. If you want to see the value of your investment account in YNAB (so that your Net Worth is accurate), add the account as an investment account. The value will not affect your budget categories, but it will affect the net worth on the \"\"All Accounts\"\" page. Either set it up as an online account so that the balance will update automatically, or add it as a manual account and simply update the balance manually when you get your monthly statement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1208e4de07e5a70118a6b83770ea03e", "text": "\"If you are using software like QuickBooks (or even just using spreadsheets or tracking this without software) use two Equity accounts, something like \"\"Capital Contributions\"\" and \"\"Capital Distributions\"\" When you write a personal check to the company, the money goes into the company's checking account and also increases the Capital Contribution account in accordance with double-entry accounting practices. When the company has enough retained earnings to pay you back, you use the Capital Distributions equity account and just write yourself a check. You can also make general journal entries every year to zero out or balance your two capital accounts with Retained Earnings, which (I think) is an automatically generated Equity account in QuickBooks. If this sounds too complex, you could also just use a single \"\"Capital Contributions and Distributions\"\" equity account for your contributions and distributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "983e84eb31d74702554938415b8ccc43", "text": "One approach would be to create Journal Entries that debit asset accounts that are associated with these items and credit an Open Balance Equity account. The value of these contributions would have to be worked out with an accountant, as it depends on the lesser of the adjusted basis vs. the fair market value, as you then depreciate the amounts over time to take the depreciation as a business expense, and it adjusts your basis in the company (to calculate capital gains/losses when you sell). If there were multiple partners, or your accountant wants it this way, you could then debit open balance equity and credit the owner's contribution to a capital account in your name that represents your basis when you sell. From a pure accounting perspective, if the Open Balance Equity account would zero out, you could just skip it and directly credit the capital accounts, but I prefer the Open Balance Equity as it helps know the percentages of initial equity which may influence partner ownership percentages and identify anyone who needs to contribute more to the partnership.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90af9afc8fe7cdabedfdec3691032f30", "text": "\"As advised you need to budget, but there are a few simple things you can do to make it easier. Work out how much your fixed bills are every month, for example, council tax, gas and electric, mortgage and rent etc. On pay-day, move an amount of cash equal to this into another bank account when you get paid. It's easier if this other account, let's call it a bills account, can pay the bills automatically via direct debits, you can then forget about it. Now your budget should tell you how much you spend on things that are more variable, food, fuel, travel etc. Again on pay-day, move an amount of cash aside to cover this (plus a small buffer amount) into another account. Whatever is now left in your main account is yours to spend or save as you see fit. You just need to make sure you are sticking to your budget and it's as easy as that. If you cannot pay direct debits from the other accounts you just need to move the money over to cover them when they need paying. Most banks will let you set up extra accounts so you can mvoe the money easily using internet banking or by a monthly standing order. If they won't let you have several \"\"current\"\" accounts you can use savings accounts but will need to manually move the money around as the bills are due. If you get all your direct debits to debit on pay-day, that makes it even easier. If you are struggling for money then prioritise paying off debt first and prioritise the debt with the highest interest rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ff87b4504eaa0cf33d2b696582f47ef", "text": "\"I think the \"\"right\"\" way to approach this is for your personal books and your business's books to be completely separate. You would need to really think of them as separate things, such that rather than being disappointed that there's no \"\"cross transactions\"\" between files, you think of it as \"\"In my personal account I invested in a new business like any other investment\"\" with a transfer from your personal account to a Stock or other investment account in your company, and \"\"This business received some additional capital\"\" which one handles with a transfer (probably from Equity) to its checking account or the like. Yes, you don't get the built-in checks that you entered the same dollar amount in each, but (1) you need to reconcile your books against reality anyway occasionally, so errors should get caught, and (2) the transactions really are separate things from each entity's perspective. The main way to \"\"hack it\"\" would be to have separate top-level placeholder accounts for the business's Equity, Income, Expenses, and Assets/Liabilities. That is, your top-level accounts would be \"\"Personal Equity\"\", \"\"Business Equity\"\", \"\"Personal Income\"\", \"\"Business Income\"\", and so on. You can combine Assets and Liabilities within a single top-level account if you want, which may help you with that \"\"outlook of my business value\"\" you're looking for. (In fact, in my personal books, I have in the \"\"Current Assets\"\" account both normal things like my Checking account, but also my credit cards, because once I spend the money on my credit card I want to think of the money as being gone, since it is. Obviously this isn't \"\"standard accounting\"\" in any way, but it works well for what I use it for.) You could also just have within each \"\"normal\"\" top-level placeholder account, a placeholder account for both \"\"Personal\"\" and \"\"My Business\"\", to at least have a consistent structure. Depending on how your business is getting taxed in your jurisdiction, this may even be closer to how your taxing authorities treat things (if, for instance, the business income all goes on your personal tax return, but on a separate form). Regardless of how you set up the accounts, you can then create reports and filter them to include just that set of business accounts. I can see how just looking at the account list and transaction registers can be useful for many things, but the reporting does let you look at everything you need and handles much better when you want to look through a filter to just part of your financial picture. Once you set up the reporting (and you can report on lists of account balances, as well as transaction lists, and lots of other things), you can save them as Custom Reports, and then open them up whenever you want. You can even just leave a report tab (or several) open, and switch to it (refreshing it if needed) just like you might switch to the main Account List tab. I suspect once you got it set up and tried it for a while you'd find it quite satisfactory.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a972d3698b1cee9c61d298a105e233ad	Why do banks insist on allowing transactions without sufficient funds?	[ { "docid": "6dafb584e471831c58c794e49801271c", "text": "The reason they want the transaction to go through is because they make money that way. Remember the overdraft protection might incur a fee. If it does their experience may show them that the fee is a greater source of profit when balanced against the losses incurred because of insufficient funds. Even free overdraft transactions are limited. If they didn't want to make money they would have a way to make sure that multiple overdrafts in a short time window wouldn't require multiple protection events. Remember each time they transfer funds they only bring you to zero. As it is now the coffee you buy after putting money on your subway fare card might also trigger an overdraft transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee98cdc37024de3dac00fdb75f6e1d98", "text": "Believe it or not, this is done as a service to you. The reason for this has to do with a fundamental difference between a credit card account and a checking account. With a credit card account, there is no money in the account; every charge is borrowed money. When you get to your credit limit, your credit transactions will start getting declined, but if the bank does for some reason let one get approved, it's not a big deal for anyone; it just means that you owe a little more than your credit limit. Note that (almost) every credit card transaction today is an electronic transaction. A checking account, however, has real money in it. When it is gone, it is gone. When a balance inquiry is done, the bank has no way of knowing how many checks you've written that have not been cashed yet. It is a customer's responsibility to know exactly how much money is available to spend. If you write more checks than you have money for in your account, technically you have committed a crime. Unfortunately, there are too many people now that are not taking the responsibility of calculating their own checking account balance seriously, and bad checks are written all the time. When a bank allows these transactions to be paid even though you don't have enough money in your account, they are preventing a crime from being committed by you. The fee is a finance charge for loaning you the money, but it is also there to encourage you not to spend more than you have. Even if you use a debit card, it is still tied to a checking account, and the bank doesn't know if you have written enough checks to overdraw your account or not. It is still your responsibility to keep track of your own available balance. Every time this happens to you, thank the bank as you pay this fee, and then commit to keeping your own running balance and always knowing how much you have left in your account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75a13d5f86c0843015219386a361eef3", "text": "The laws about this changed in 2010 with the new Overdraft Protection Law HR 1261. § 140B. (c) Consumer consent opt-In.—A depository institution may charge overdraft coverage fees with respect to the use of an automatic teller machine or point of sale transaction only if the consumer has consented in writing, in electronic form, or in such other form as is permitted under regulations of the Bureau. Now when you sign up for a bank account you have to opt in to overdraft coverage (the bank transfers funds from other accounts to cover overdrafts), or overdraft protection (the bank simply bounces NSF checks). I'm pretty sure you could always set this option on your account, but banks were defaulting everyone's account that didn't think to ask such that overdrafts got paid and incurred fees. The law now prohibits them from using that as the default option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73851022abdb3f0a43549072dcdda4a5", "text": "This really should be a comment, but I can't yet. The question desperately needs a location tag. In at least some countries(New Zealand), the default action on all insufficient funds transactions is to refuse the transaction. Credit cards are the only common exception. Every bank operating in NZ that I know of acts this way. Sometimes there is a fee for bouncing a transaction, sometimes not, that depends on the bank. Any other option must be explicitly arranged in writing with the bank. Personally, coming from a country where declining transactions is the default, I'd be shocked and angry to be stuck with an automatic transfer from another account. Angry enough to change banks if they won't immediately cease and desist.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a78fd2aca4643c9aea11ae2e930ab607", "text": "Banks are not your friends, they are not performing services for you because they like you. They are a business, and they make money by borrowing money from you at low interest and loaning it out at higher interest. They are trying to persuade you to deposit more money (however briefly) in their bank so they can loan out more money. They are probably also counting on the fact that most folks won't go to the trouble of setting up accounts at multiple banks with the interlocking automatic transfers, in order to meet the required deposit threshold. That lets them save on the interest payments to consumers that are individually tiny, but significant in the aggregate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4f61b877d8a4b2a47ea5f22cfe2168", "text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6117285b4f91fa403a869d9aae1f0b06", "text": "Transaction fees are part of the income for banks, and as we know they are profit making corporations just like any other Company. The differene is that instead of buying and packing and Selling groceries, they buy and package and sell Money. Within the rules and the market they will try to maximize their profit, exactly like Apple or GM or Walmart and so on. Sweden and Holland are part of the European union and the leaders of the union has defined (by law) that certain types of transactions should be done without fees. In order to transfer Money from your Swedish account to the Dutch account you do what is called a SEPA transaction, which should be done in one day without cost to you as a customer. Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Euro_Payments_Area Gunnar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6d3f8065db23cfea06bdb6040233857", "text": "Limited transactions: what's to stop a firm from having thousands of bank accounts to avoid the limit. This of course is costly. Tax on transactions: some trades are worth $00.001 and some are $190,000. They shouldn't be taxed the same. Both increase costs of capital and literally everyone in America pays for it. Investment is more expensive. And our beautiful liquid market is no longer as efficient and can no longer responds as quickly to market forces. Investors now go to other foreign markets that don't limit or charge for transactions. Both plans will cost the economy billions of dollars and for what? So some computers don't trade almost instantaneously? Exactly why is that a problem other than class warfare? A lot of the risks that people have about flash crashes have been mitigated with better algorithms and rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8034a4cc4698ab17120162a58ee34d8", "text": "The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires that banks assist the U.S. Gov't in identifying and preventing money laundering. This means they're required to keep records of cash transactions of Negotiable Instruments, and report any such transactions with a daily aggregate limit of a value greater than (or equal to?) $10,000. Because of this, the business which is issuing the money order is also required to record this transaction to report it to the bank, who then holds the records in case FinCEN wants to review the transactions. EDITED: Added clarification on the $10,000 rule", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e98a39641e112d9ac6b9f797f28319c9", "text": "\"Banks are in it to make money. But they're expected to provide a social good which powers our economy: secure money storage (bank accounts) and cashless transactions (credit/debit cards). And the government does not subsidize this. In fact, banks are being squeezed. Prudent customers dislike paying the proper cost of their account's maintenance (say, a $50/year fee for a credit card, or $9/month for a checking account) - they want it free. Meanwhile government is pretty aggressive about preventing \"\"fine print\"\" trickery that would let them recover costs other ways. However there isn't much sympathy for consumers who make trivial mistakes - whether they be technical (overdraft, late fee) or money-management mistakes (like doing balance transfers or getting fooled by promotional interest rates). So that's where banks are able to make their money: when people are imprudent. The upshot is that it's hard for a bank to make money on a prudent careful customer; those end up getting \"\"subsidized\"\" by the less-careful customers who pay fees and buy high-margin products like balance transfers. And this has created a perverse incentive: banks make more money when they actively encourage customers to be imprudent. Here, the 0% interest is to make you cocky about running up a balance, or doing balance transfers at a barely-mentioned fee of 3-5%. They know most Americans don't have $500 in the bank and you won't be able to promptly pay it off right before the 0% rate ends. (or you'll forget). And this works - that's why they do it. By law, you already get 0% interest on purchases when you pay the card in full every month. So if that's your goal, you already have it. In theory, the banks collect about 1.5% from every transaction you do, and certainly in your mind's eye, you'd think that would be enough to get by without charging interest. That doesn't work, though. The problem is, such a no-interest card would attract people who carry large balances. That would have two negative impacts: First the bank would have to spend money reborrowing, and second, the bank would have huge exposure to credit card defaults. The thing to remember is the banks are not nice guys and are not here to serve you. They're here to use you to make money, and they're not beneath encouraging you to do things that are actually bad for you. Caveat Emptor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033cc75052b075d066d1a2b1420dfe42", "text": "\"This will happen automatically when you open an interest-bearing account with a bank. You didn't think that banks just kept all that cash in a vault somewhere, did you? That's not the way modern banking works. Today (and for a long, long time) banks will keep only a small fraction of their deposits on hand (called the \"\"reserve\"\") to fund daily withdrawals and other operations. The rest they routinely lend out to other customers, which is how they pay for their operations (someone has to pay all those tellers, branch managers, loan officers) and pay interest on your deposits, as well as a profit for their owners (it's not a charity service). The fees charged for loan origination, as well as the difference between the loan interest rate and the deposit rate, make up the profit. Banks rarely hold their own loans. Instead, they will sell the loans in portfolios to investors, sometimes retaining servicing rights (they continue to collect the payments and pass them on) and sometimes not (the payments are now due to someone else). This allows them to make more loans. Banks may sometimes not have enough capital on hand. In this case, they can make inter-bank loans to meet their short-term needs. In some cases, they'll take those loans from a government central bank. In the US, this is \"\"The Fed\"\", or the Federal Reserve Bank. In the US, back around the late 1920's, and again in the 1980's some banks experienced a \"\"run\"\", or a situation where people lost confidence in the bank and wanted to withdraw their money. This caused the bank to have insufficient funds to support the withdrawals, so not everyone got their money. People panicked, and others wanted to take their money out, which caused the situation to snowball. This is how many banks failed. (In the '80s, it was savings-and-loans that failed - still a kind of \"\"bank\"\".) Today, we have the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect depositors. In the crashes in the early 2000's, many banks closed up one night and opened the next in a conservatorship, and then were literally doing business as a new bank without depositors (necessarily) even knowing. This protected the consumers. The bank (as a company) and its owners were not protected.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ffeb4e741fb823d17a81aa85e8c2ea3", "text": "Once, back when I had a bank account, I tried to pay a large emergency dental bill with my debit card. It rejected it as it turned out the bill was less than a dollar over what I had in the account. I thought there was enough money so I tried again, 3 times. They charged me an overdraft for each attempt even though the debit never went through. This was without overdraft protection, as overdraft protection would have allowed the debit and charged me one overdraft. I don't know the details but federal regulations have changed how they do this. To me overdraft protection rejects any debit that attempts to overdraft my account and doesn't charge me with an overdraft that didn't actually occur as a result of the charge being rejected, but that's not how it works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0643397497e4dc64d752d89cd18058c", "text": "It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "386d8e8e3af1fcae3812eb9ea29282c0", "text": "\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30036900c61f555fd1276bf5e10425c8", "text": "\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7fb572eaf82e37b17cdfe0713d57919", "text": "Commercial banks are not allowed to create real money. The confusion comes from the different ways money is counted. In M2, deposits count as money. So if you take $100 and deposit it in the bank, M2 will count the $100 deposit as money, as well as the $100 cash the bank has from the deposit. So under M2 the money supply has increased by $100, but no real money was created. Commercial banks can't create real money out of thin air, and they can't loan out money they don't have.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8b6373314a473daf754fe917468c2c6", "text": "The answer is far more simple. The purchasers of periphery debt have been banks in the periphery. Since these countries don't have a central bank, their private banks were swallowing the national debt since nobody else wanted to touch it. When the market value of that debt plummets, the banks have massive holes they need to fill on their balance sheets to fulfill capital requirements and solvency. Therefore, the banks themselves need to be injected with liquidity. Now you can see why its a reiterative problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "949898841e29b2e2963291708f363b42", "text": "Thanks medikit, your answer is 100% correct. Bank of America was forced to accept TARP funds because the US Govt did not want there to be a split between banks who took TARP and those who didn't. Bank of America did NOT need the money, hence they were really unhappy with the strings it came attached with. Rumor has it that they also wanted out of the Countrywide deal after looking at the books, but they were forced by Treasury not to pull out of the deal (a pull-out would signal that things are really bad). The govt offered some deal sweeteners, deal went ahead, then the govt spent the next few years suing Bank of America due to loans originated by Countrywide prior to the acquisition. The CEO ended up having to resign based on the shitshow that was that deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91141fa1e68eb5bed3412c7737f9aa3e", "text": "\"Here's some way of thinking about it, and I'm not really sure if it's completely correct, but sometimes we oversimplify when trying to tell a five year old :) Say there are two people in the world. You and me. We both have $100. A total of $200 in the world. Suddenly, a wild bank appears. I deposit my $100 in the bank. I still have $100 and you still have $100. Now you want to buy something from me that costs $150. You go to the bank to loan money. The bank has $100 available so gives you $50. You give me $150. Now I have $250 and you are $50 in debt. I deposit the $150 in the bank. We do this again and again, until I have $1000 on my bank account, and you are $900 in debt. I want to buy a house of $500 and go to my bank, demanding to take out $500. But there is only $200 in the whole world so the bank can only give me $200. \"\"Money\"\" has been created out of thin air, but it's actually you who are in debt. If you go bankrupt, the bank has a big debt it won't get back, and is in deep shit when I come around to demand my money back. At that point governments step in to loan the bank money for cheap, because if the bank fails, I will lose all my pension savings I put into that bank, as well as my companies and a lot of my employees. And other banks loaned this bank money, so if this bank fails, the other banks will be in the exact same position and will also fail, because then they will also have debts that won't be paid back. There are regulations minimizing this - i.e. a bank is required to keep a percentage of the amount of money on its accounts, so there's a maximum limit of \"\"money created\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
789d38f6e4ac96470d5472cadbbfa635	Saving up for an expensive car	[ { "docid": "1f04a8d5a7760b49dfea60dbdb5c7f51", "text": "The question is how does $16,000/year for 6.5 years fit into your budget. Or to put it another way, what won't you be spending that money on? Housing, food, vacations, retirement fund, investments (though you can invest your car fund in the meantime), building a hefty emergency fund, kids college funds, saving for a down payment on a home, charity, etc... are all other places that money could go. I don't know what your needs are today let alone 6.5 years into the future, but I'd encourage you to consider all your financial goals and evaluate where this expense would fit. It seems your plan is to save up to the total cost of the car and then buy it in cash. That's a valid strategy, but it means you'll have no car (unless you already own one) for 6.5 years. Do you need a car? If so, what will you drive in the meantime (and even if you already own another car outright, you'll have gas and maintenance expenses)? If you don't need a car, then $100,000 is a rather extravagant purchase for something we just established you don't need. Would you be happier having this expensive car in 6.5 years, or having a series of less expensive cars starting now? Or buying a used model of the expensive car sooner? Or having no car at all? Also, a lot can change in 6.5 years. Cars will evolve and there'll be different models and options available. Maybe your salary will have doubled, or maybe you'll be unemployed. You could be living in a different city, have a different commute, and maybe you'll need a minivan to haul kids around or live in a place with bad winters and want a 4-wheel-drive. You'll also need to be prepared for the additional expenses that generally come with expensive cars, such as higher insurance and maintenance rates, and parking could be costly if you live in an expensive city. The other option, of course, if the car is truly something you need, want, and can afford, would be to save up a sizable down payment and finance the rest so you can get the car sooner. Finally, there's nothing wrong with saving your money for 6.5 years, building up that fund, and then reevaluating what makes the most sense for you at that time. Maybe it will the car, maybe something else, but the nice thing about having savings is that it gives you more options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23fd7f9dc7b35a42c2e519670245b8b1", "text": "I've read online that 20% is a reasonable amount to pay for a car each month - Don't believe everything you read on the internet. But, let me ask, does your current car have zero expense? No fuel, no oil change, no repairs, no insurance? If the 20% is true, you are already spending a good chunk of it each month. My car just celebrated her 8th birthday. And at 125,000 miles, needed $3000 worth of maintenance repairs. The issue isn't with buying the expensive car, you can buy whatever you can afford, that's a personal preference. It's how you propose to budget for it that seems to be bad math. Other members here have already pointed out that this financial decision might not be so wise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c34ca2fb32df10237a822f4f2e43971", "text": "If you can afford to put $1,333 towards saving for a new car each month, then there is nothing wrong with your logic You should be aware that your car will probably cost around $110,000 in 6.5 years, but other than that the logic is fine. However...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca09ae3acccbd37ed74f5dd477dffe39", "text": "This seems really simple to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2d1c0c043e6c0d127ce9c0d8d2b9b31", "text": "Any way you look at it, this is a terrible idea. Cars lose value. They are a disposable item that gets used up. The more expensive the car, the more value they lose. If you spend $100,000 on a new car, in four years it will be worth less than $50,000.* That is a lot of money to lose in four years. In addition to the loss of value, you will need to buy insurance, which, for a $100,000 car, is incredible. If your heart is set on this kind of car, you should definitely save up the cash and wait to buy the car. Do not get a loan. Here is why: Your plan has you saving $1,300 a month ($16,000 a year) for 6.5 years before you will be able to buy this car. That is a lot of money for a long range goal. If you faithfully save this money that long, and at the end of the 6.5 years you still want this car, it is your money to spend as you want. You will have had a long time to reconsider your course of action, but you will have sacrificed for a long time, and you will have the money to lose. However, you may find out a year into this process that you are spending too much money saving for this car, and reconsider. If, instead, you take out a loan for this car, then by the time you decide the car was too much of a stretch financially, it will be too late. You will be upside down on the loan, and it will cost you thousands to sell the car. So go ahead and start saving. If you haven't given up before you reach your goal, you may find that in 6.5 years when it is time to write that check, you will look back at the sacrifices you have made and decide that you don't want to simply blow that money on a car. Consider a different goal. If you invest this $1300 a month and achieve 8% growth, you will be a millionaire in 23 years. * You don't need to take my word for it. Look at the car you are interested in, go to kbb.com, select the 2012 version of the car, and look up the private sale value. You'll most likely see a price that is about half of what a new one costs.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "bebad083a6e66d5ba199fd1e63a0f15b", "text": "With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0023829af08e1f223028c03a4ed6db45", "text": "You are really showing some wisdom here, and congratulations on finishing college. Its a lot about likelihoods. If you buy a new car, there is something like a 99.5% chance you will get a car that will not need repairs. If you buy a car for $1200 there is probably a 20% chance that the car will only need minimal repairs. So the answer is there is no real guarantee that spending any amount of money you will end up with a car with no repairs. You also can't assume that with buying a car it will immediately need repairs. Its possible, that you could spend 1200 on a car and it will need an oil change. In three months it might need brakes and in 6 months tires. If that is the case, you could save up the money for repairs. Have you looked for a car? It will take some work, but you might be able to find something in good condition for your budget. If you shop for a loan, go with a good credit union or local bank. Mostly you are looking for a low rate. However, I would advise against it. You worked so hard on getting out of school without debt, why start now? Be weird and buy a car for cash. Heck someone may be able to loan you a car for a short time while you save some money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34023394bf31a456359b7021c120bf34", "text": "\"I will answer the question from the back: who can NOT afford luxury cars? Those whose parents paid for their college education, cannot afford luxury cars, but buy them anyway. Why? I have what may seem a rather shocking proposition related to the point of not saving for kids' college: parents do NOT owe children a college education. Why should they? Did your parents fund your college? Or did you get it through a mix of Pell grants, loans, and work? If they did, then you owe them $ back for it, adjusted for inflation. If they did not, well then why do you feel your children deserve more than you deserved when you were a child? You do not owe your children a college education. They owe it to themselves. Gifts do not set one up for success, they set one up for dependence. I will add one more hypothesis: financial discipline is best learned through one's own experiences. When an 18+ year old adult gets a very large amount of money as a gift every year for several years (in the form of paid tuition), does that teach them frugality and responsibility? My proposition is that those who get a free ride on their parents' backs are not well served in terms of becoming disciplined budgeters. They become the subjects of the question in this post: those why buy cars and houses they cannot afford, and pay for vacations with credit cards. We reap what we sow as a society. Of course, college is only one case in point, but a very illustrative one. The bigger point is that financial discipline can only be developed when there are opportunities to develop it. Such opportunities arise under one important condition: financial independence. What does buying children cars for their high-school graduation, buying them 4 years of college tuition, and buying them who knows what else (study abroad trips, airfare, apartment leases, textbooks, etc. etc.) teach? Does it teach independence or dependence? It can certainly (at least that's what you hope for) teach them to appreciate when others do super nice things for them. But does free money instill financial responsibility? Try to ask kids whose parents paid for their college WHY they did it. \"\"Because my parents want me to succeed\"\" is probably the best you can hope for. Now ask them, But do your parents OWE you a college education? \"\"Why yes, I guess they do.\"\" Why? \"\"Well, I guess because they told me they do. They said they owe it to me to set me up for success in life.\"\" Now think about this: Do people who become financially successful achieve that success because someone owed something to them? Or because they recognized that nobody owes them anything, and took it upon themselves to create that success for themselves? These are not very comfortable topics to consider, especially for those of you who have either already sunk many tens of thousands of dollars into your childrens' college education. Or for those who have been living very frugally and mindfully for the past 10-15 years driven by the goal of doing so. But I want to open this can of worms because I believe fundamentally it may be creating more problems than it is solving. I am sure there are some historical and cultural explanations for the ASSUMPTION that has at some point formed in the American society that parents owe their children a college education. But as with most social conventions, it is merely an idea -- a shared belief. It has become so ingrained in conversations at work parties and family reunions that it seems that many of those who are ardent advocates of the idea of paying for their childrens' education no longer even understand why they feel that way. They simply go with the flow of social expectations, unwilling or unable to question either the premises behind these expectations, or the long-term consequences and results of such expectations. With this comment I want to point to the connection between the free financial gifts that parents give to their (adult!) children, and the level of financial discipline of these young adults, their spending habits, sense of entitlement, and sense of responsibility over their financial decisions. The statistics of the U.S. savings rate, average credit card debt, foreclosures, and bankruptcy indeed tell a troubling story. My point is that these trends don't just happen because of lots of TV advertising and the proverbial Jones's. These trends happen because of a lack of financial education, discipline, and experience with balancing one's own checkbook. Perhaps we need to think more deeply about the consequences of our socially motivated decisions as parents, and what is really in our children's best interests -- not while they are in college, but while they live the rest of their lives after college. Finally, to all the 18+ y.o. adult 'children' who are reeling from the traumatic experience of not having their parents pay for their college (while some of their friends parents TOTALLY did!), I have this perspective to offer: Like you are now, your parents are adults. Their money is theirs to spend, because it was theirs to earn. You are under no obligation to pay for your parents' retirement (not that you were going to). Similarly your parents have no obligation to pay for your college. They can spend their money on absolutely whatever they want: be it a likeside cottage, vacations, a Corvette, or slots in the casino. How they spend their money is their concern only, and has nothing to do with your adult needs (such as college education). If your parents mismanage their finances and go bankrupt, it is their obligation to get themselves back in the black -- not yours. If you have the means and may be so inclined, you may help them; if you do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what you do, they will still love you as their child no less. Similarly, if your parents have the means and are so inclined, they may help you; if they do not or are not, fair enough. Regardless of what they do, you are to love them as your parents no less. Your task as an adult is to focus on how you will meet your own financial needs, not to dwell on which of your needs were not met by people whose finances should well be completely separate from yours at this point in life. For an adult, to harbor an expectation of receiving something of value for free is misguided: it betrays unjustified, illusory entitlement. It is the expectation of someone who is clueless as to the value of money measured by the effort and time needed to earn it. When adults want to acquire stuff or services, they have to pay for these things with their own money. That's how adults live. When adults want to get a massage or take a ride in a cab, are they traumatized by their parents' unfulfilled obligation to pay for these services? No -- they realize that it's their own responsibility to take care of these needs. They either need to earn the money to pay for these things, or buy them on credit and pay off the debt later. Education is a type of service, just like a massage or a cab ride. It is a service that you decide you need to get, in order to do xyz (become smarter, get a better paying job, join a profession, etc.). Therefore as with any other service, the primary responsibility for paying for this service is yours. You have 3 options (or their combination): work now so that you can earn the money to pay for this service later; work part-time while you are receiving this service; acquire the service on credit and work later to pay it off. That's it. This is called the real world. The better you can deal with it, the more successful you will become in it. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "782aeb037539e9920bc6acc24d2e2fca", "text": "\"I think it is stated perfectly in the question, \"\"unforeseen critical needs.\"\" You know you will need to buy new tires for your car, they are critical but not unforeseen. However, if a tree falls on your car and you need to pay the insurance deductible for the repairs it would be unforeseen. You should budget for the expenses you can plan for in advance like car maintenance and repairs. An emergency fund is for items that are out of the ordinary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e60d4ad960789fa6557ad6a8d91e138", "text": "Keep in mind your household income is in the top 20%, which does not translate to wealth. Given a healthy income, and no debt, other then a small house payment, you probably have a decent amount of free cash flow. This could easily be used to buy a car on time… which a lot of people do. Congratulations on being different. Having said that, living as you do, you will likely be wealthier than your income suggests. If you invested the amount you saved on car payments for an average car you can become a muli-millionaire. Doing that alone can put you in the top 10% of the wealthiest in this nation. Keep in mind 76% of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, so there is a sizable portion of the population that make more than you do, yet one costly emergency can cause them to spiral into significant financial difficulty. News flash: Emergencies happen. If I am not being clear, you are living wisely! I would recommend reading The Millionaire Next Door and The Millionaire Mind. You will understand that not following the whims of advertisers is good for your bottom line and that it is good to be different from the general population. One of my favorite stories from the author is these yuppies hires the author to find them rich people to sell their products. The author gets the rich people by offering them cash, albeit a relatively small amount considering their wealth (about $200) and lunch. The yuppies complain that the guys don’t “look rich” as there are no fancy suits or Rolex watches. One of the rich guys likes the pitch so much in inquires on how he can buy the company. There are a lot of lessons in that short anecdote.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fbc902b2e8751c0e08faf3c047029915", "text": "\"As the others said, you're doing everything right. So, at this it's not a matter of what you should do, it's a matter of what do you want to do? What would make you the happiest? So, what would you like to do most with that extra money? The point is, since you're already doing everything right with the rest of your money, there's really nothing you can do that's wrong with this money. Except using it on something that increases your monthly expenses, like a down payment on a car. In fact, there's no reason you have to do anything \"\"sensible\"\" with this money at all. You could blow it at nightclubs if you wanted to, and that would be perfectly ok. In fact, since you've got everything else covered, why not \"\"invest\"\" it in making some memories? How about vacations to exotic and rugged places, while you're still young enough to enjoy them?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee6c38fd143f2637083b440ec48fbf01", "text": "I like Nathan's answer some, but am horribly curious as to why you have not made payments on a $3500 student loan? If you are wealthy enough to afford a new car, this should be paid off next week. IMHO. Above all else your financial goals should dictate if you buy a new car. What are they for you? If the goal is to build wealthy quickly then Nathan's advice may be to unfrugal for you. If your goal is to impress people with the car you drive and accumulate very little real wealth then purchasing or leasing a car should be a top priority. So to answer your question correctly one must understand your goals. For 2016, the average car payment is $479 per month. If you invested that in a decent growth stock mutual fund in 40 years you'll have around 2.6 million. However, you do need something to drive now. If you can cut your car expense to $200 per month, and save the other $279 you will still end up with about 1.5 million in that same 40 years. Personally I attempt to shoot for $200 ownership cost per car per month. Its a bit difficult as I drive a lot. Also I would not purchase a new car until my net worth exceeded 2 million. At that point my investments could mitigate the steep depreciation costs of owning a new car.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba4c40ef92b1b89622a3207dc14fd562", "text": "My god man, where do you live that is too expensive to live on your own and 7K isn't enough for emergency cash? Anyway, with your age and income I would be more worried about a long-term sustainable lifestyle. In other words, a job that nets you more than $26K/year. Someday you may want to have a wife and kids and that income sure as hell wont pay for their college. That was life advice, now for financial: I've always been a believer that if someone is not a savvy investor, their priorities before investments should be paying off debt. If you had a lot of capital or knew your way around investment vehicles and applicable returns then I would be telling you something different. But in your case, pay off that car first giving yourself more money to invest in the long-run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2be745bf52009f583df25e87f5a8a651", "text": "This isn't the case with everyone. Now if you want to talk about BMW and Mercedes hybrids, the prices are so much higher it doesn't make sense financially, even if you consider the amount of money you'll save on gas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78b7e7d1ebadbacbc9ae26e90af8340f", "text": "The first thing that strikes me is: Is this a time-limited offer? Because if you can expect the offer to still be valid in a few weeks, why not just wait that month (which will earn you the money) and buy the car then? The second thing you need to consider is obviously the risk that in the interim, there will be an actual emergency which would require the money that you no longer have. The third thing to consider is whether you need the car now. Do you require a car to get around and your current one is breaking down, perhaps even to the point that repairing it would cost you more than buying a new car and it is currently not safe to drive? If so, compare the cost of repairing to the cost of buying; if the difference is small, and the new car would be more likely to be reliable than the old car after spending the money, then it can make sense to buy a new car and perhaps sell the old one in its current condition to someone who likes to tinker. (Even if you only recover a few hundreds of dollars, that's still money that perhaps you wouldn't otherwise have.) The fourth thing I would consider, especially given the time frame involved, is: Can you get a loan to buy the new car? Even if the interest rate is high, one month's worth of interest expense won't set you back very far, and it will keep the money in your emergency fund for if there is an actual emergency in the weeks ahead. Doing so might be a better choice than to take the money out of the emergency fund, if you have the opportunity; save the emergency fund for when that opportunity does not exist. And of course, without knowing how much you earn, take care to not end up with a car that is no more reliable than what you have now. Without knowing how much you earn and what the car you have in mind would cost, it's hard to say anything for certain, but if the car you have in mind costs less than a month's worth of net pay for you, consider whether it's likely to be reliable. Maybe you are making an absolutely stellar pay and the car will be perfectly fine; but there's that risk. Running the car by a mechanic to have it briefly checked out before buying it may be a wise move, just to make sure that you don't end up with a large car repair expense in a few months when the transmission gives up, for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb616d5c5f1c022f015021145bd3b002", "text": "Think about it. IF you save $15K by buying a Honda or a Mazda, you can invest those money at modest 5% average, you'll have over 60K before you retire, which allows you to retire at least a year earlier.... So it is worth working an extra year in your life to have a fancier car? And that's a conservative investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22259b6d72da91a9fe3224dbeb616a0b", "text": "Just to make this a little less vauge, I will base everything on the Mercedes Benz American Express (MB AMEX) card, which is the closest to a $100 annual fee I found on American Express's website. The benefits of a card with an annual fee generally are worth the cost if (and only if) you spend enough money on the card, and avoid paying interest to offset the benefit. Using the MB AMEX card as a reference, it offers 5X points for Mercedes Benz purchases, 3X points at gas stations, 2X points at restaurants, and 1X points everywhere else. Even if we only make purchases at the 1X rate, it only takes charging $10,000 to the card in a year in order to make up the difference. Not too hard to do on a card someone uses as their main method of payment. Every dollar spent at the higher rates only makes that easier. There are a number of other benefits as well. After spending $5,000 on the card in a year, you receive a $500 gift card towards the purchase of a Mercedes Benz car. For anyone on the market for a Mercedes Benz, the card pays for itself multiple times with just this benefit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af223850d5c390d6a986d4bdb93cfedf", "text": "Establish good saving and spending habits. Build up your savings so that when you do buy a car, you can pay cash. Make spending decisions, especially for housing, transportation and entertainment, that allow you to save a substantial portion of your income. The goal is to get yourself to a place where you have enough net worth that the return on your assets is greater than the amount you can earn by working. (BTW, this is basically what I did. I put my two sons through top colleges on my dime and retired six years ago at the age of 56).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c8a6c05c6d1e543cb0dedd72e683077", "text": "insurance premiums My annual car premium always caught me off guard until I set up a dedicated savings account for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03538801fbcda505e87c2fe7b8935bf1", "text": "The other commenters have a point. You're going to have a hard time succeeding without the right structure at work. That said, you can look into sales methodologies like MEDDIC. These methods are commonly deployed at B2B companies which it sounds like you are.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
761e3554c0a8675a6a933abf73f38d1e	What is a good 5-year plan for a college student with $15k in the bank?	[ { "docid": "49db93a60acf8d9b2a5a8d5ef79c49e5", "text": "\"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24deba5f302cdfb63f242bb1a9868dfd", "text": "Fifteen thousand dollars is not a whole lot of cash. It should probably be kept liquid. To that end, savings accounts and certificates of deposit (CDs) are typically used. (There are also money market funds, but I am not sure that makes sense once trading costs are figured into the equation.) I would set some of that money aside, for an emergency fund. (Start with at least 6 months of realistic living expenses and also consider a fund for unforeseen emergencies.) I would consider using 2-3 thousand to setup a retirement account. The rest, I would place into CD ladders, so that it is somewhat accessible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d530f2b6588cb43271a67fa236e2bc7c", "text": "You can put them in a 5 years CD and getting a maximum of %2.5 APY if you're lucky. If you put 15k now, in 5 years you'll have $1.971. If it sounds good then take a look at the current inflation rate (i'm in usa)... If you want to think about retirement then you should open a Roth IRA. But you won't be able to touch the money without penalties (10% of earnings) before you get 59 1/2 years old. Another option would be to open a regular investment account with an online discounted broker. Which one? Well, this should be a totally separate question... If you decide to invest (Roth IRA or regular account) and you're young and inexperienced then go for a balanced mutual fund. Still do a lot of research to determine your portfolio allocation or which fund is best suited for you. Betterment (i never used it) is a no brainer investment broker. Please don't leave them in a generic checking or low interest savings account because you'll save nothing (see inflation again)...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3236e9263c86aca29d722411f9f18e59", "text": "I just checked TCF's rates, and they only pay a miserly rate of 0.25%. Banks like Capital One or Sallie Mae pay about 1.15%, which is more than 4x, though still nothing great. Do you expect to use these funds in 5 years (e.g. for down payment on a house), or could you contribute them to an IRA?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d739cbf7d802944cf3affba703fe57", "text": "First thing to do right now, is to see if there's somewhere equally liquid, equally risk free you can park your cash for higher rate of return. You can do this now, and decide how much to move into less liquid investments on your own pace. When I was in grad school, I opened a Roth IRA. These are fantastic things for young people who want to keep their options open. You can withdraw the contributions without penalty any time. The earnings are tax free on retirement, or for qualified withdrawls after five years. Down payments on a first home qualify for example. As do medical expenses. Or you can leave it for retirement, and you'll not pay any taxes on it. So Roth is pretty flexible, but what might that investment look like? It in depends on your time horizon; five years is pretty short so you probably don't want to be too stock market weighted. Just recognize that safe short term investments are very poorly rewarded right now. However, you can only contribute earnings in the year they are made, up to a 5000 annual maximum. And the deadline for 2010 is gone. So you'll have to move this into an IRA over a number of years, and have the earnings to back it. So in the meanwhile, the obvious advice to pay down your credit card bills & save for emergencies applies. It's also worth looking at health and dental insurance, as college students are among the least likely to have decent insurance. Also keep a good chunk on hand in liquid accounts like savings or checking for emergencies and general poor planning. You don't want to pay bank fees like I once did because I mis-timed a money transfer. It's also great for negotiating when you can pay in cash up front; my car insurance for example, will charge you more for monthly payments than for every six months. Or putting a huge chunk down on a car will pretty much guarantee the best available dealer financing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8896bbf28ca415182cc04b43e45e9487", "text": "\"A good question -- there are many good tactical points in other answers but I wanted to emphasize two strategic points to think about in your \"\"5-year plan\"\", both of which involve around diversification: Expense allocation: You have several potential expenses. Actually, expenses isn't the right word, it's more like \"\"applications\"\". Think of the money you have as a resource that you can \"\"pour\"\" (because money has liquidity!) into multiple \"\"buckets\"\" depending on time horizon and risk tolerance. An ultra-short-term cushion for extreme emergencies -- e.g. things go really wrong -- this should be something you can access at a moment's notice from a bank account. For example, your car has been towed and they need cash. A short-term cushion for emergencies -- something bad happens and you need the money in a few days or weeks. (A CD ladder is good for this -- it pays better interest and you can get the money out quick with a minimal penalty.) A long-term savings cushion -- you might want to make a down payment on a house or a car, but you know it's some years off. For this, an investment account is good; there are quite a few index funds out there which have very low expenses and will get you a better return than CDs / savings account, with some risk tolerance. Retirement savings -- $1 now can be worth a huge amount of money to you in 40 years if you invest it wisely. Here's where the IRA (or 401K if you get a job) comes in. You need to put these in this order of priority. Put enough money in your short-term cushions to be 99% confident you have enough. Then with the remainder, put most of it in an investment account but some of it in a retirement account. The thing to realize is that you need to make the retirement account off-limits, so you don't want to put too much money there, but the earlier you can get started in a retirement account, the better. I'm 38, and I started both an investment and a retirement account at age 24. They're now to the point where I save more income, on average, from the returns in my investments, than I can save from my salary. But I wish I had started a few years earlier. Income: You need to come up with some idea of what your range of net income (after living expenses) is likely to be over the next five years, so that you can make decisions about your savings allocation. Are you in good health or bad? Are you single or do you have a family? Are you working towards law school or medical school, and need to borrow money? Are you planning on getting a job with a dependable salary, or do you plan on being self-employed, where there is more uncertainty in your income? These are all factors that will help you decide how important short-term and long term savings are to your 5-year plan. In short, there is no one place you should put your money. But be smart about it and you'll give yourself a good head start in your personal finances. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "fe759125c34bd1657848291aa5f8babc", "text": "\"Books such as \"\"The Pocket Idiot's Guide to Investing in Mutual Funds\"\" claim that money market funds and CDs are the most prudent things to invest in if you need the money within 5 years. More specifically:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5441f74c31fd065e750dc107af1495a4", "text": "\"This may be a great idea, or a very bad one, or it may simply not be applicable to you, depending on your personal circumstances and interests. The general idea is to avoid passive investments such as stocks and bonds, because they tend to grow by \"\"only\"\" a few percent per year. Instead, invest in things where you will be actively involved in some form. With those, much higher investment returns are common (but also the risk is higher, and you may be tied down and have to limit the traveling you want to do). So here are a few different ways to do that: Get a college degree, but only if you are interested in the field, and it ends up paying you well. If you aren't interested in the field, you won't land the $100k+ jobs later. And if you study early-childhood education, you may love the job, but it won't pay enough to make it a good investment. Of course, it also has to fit with your life plans, but that might be easier than it seems. You want to travel. Have you thought about anthropology, marine biology or archeology? Pick a reputable, hard-to-get-into, academic school rather than a vocation-oriented oe, and make sure that they have at least some research program. That's one way to distinguish between the for-profit schools (who tend to be very expensive and land you in low-paying jobs), and schools that actually lead to a well-paying future. Or if your interest runs more in a different direction: start a business. Your best bet might be to buy a franchise. Many of the fast-food chains, such as McDonalds, will let you buy as long as you have around $300k net worth. Most franchises also require that you are qualified. It may often make sense to buy not just one franchised store, but several in an area. You can increase your income (and your risk) by getting a loan - you can probably buy at least $5 million worth of franchises with your \"\"seed money\"\". BTW, I'm only using McDonalds as an example. Well-known fast food franchises used to be money-making machines, but their popularity may well have peaked. There are franchises in all kinds of industries, though. Some tend to be very short-term (there is a franchise based on selling customer's stuff on ebay), while others can be very long-lived (many real-estate brokerages are actually franchises). Do be careful which ones you buy. Some can be a \"\"license to print money\"\" while others may fail, and there are some fraudsters in the franchising market, out to separate you from your money. Advantage over investing in stocks and bonds: if you choose well, your return on investment can be much higher. That's generally true for any business that you get personally involved in. If you do well, you may well end up retiring a multimillionaire. Drawback: you will be exposed to considerable risk. The investment will be a major chunk of your net worth, and you may have to put all your eggs in none basket. If your business fails, you may lose everything. A third option (but only if you have a real interest in it!): get a commercial driver's license and buy an 18-wheeler truck. I hear that owner-operators can easily make well over $100k, and that's with having to pay off a bank loan. But if you don't love trucker culture, it is likely not worth doing. Overall, you probably get the idea: the principle is to use your funds as seed money to launch something profitable and secure, as well as enjoyable for you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71b21fd13403926ec1a6b658feec315f", "text": "Talk about opportunity cost. Show a rope, and put a tag with him on the end of it. Explain that since he has max out his credit, he can no longer get more. Without more credit here are the things he can't have The key to illustrate is that all the money he makes, for the next several years is obligated to the people he has already borrowed it from. Try to have him imagine giving his entire paycheck to a bank, and then doing that for the next five years. To drive it home, point out that there are 5 super bowls, 5 college championship games, 5 final fours, 5 annual concerts he likes, 5 model years of cars, 5 or more iPhone versions in those five years. Or whatever he is into. 5 years of laptops, 5 years of fishing trips. These things are not affordable to him right now. He has already spent his money for the next 5 years, and those are the things he cannot have because he is, in fact, out of cash. Furthermore, if he continues, the credit will dry up completely and his 5 year horizon could easily become ten. To illustrate how long 5 or 10 years is, have him remember that 10 years ago he might have been in college or the military. That 5 years ago Facebook was no big thing. That 5 years ago the Razr was an awesome phone. That 5 years ago we had a different president.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ba2fbf8bc4ade401666b89c7123cbf", "text": "\"First of all, I'm happy that the medical treatments were successful. I can't even imagine what you were going through. However, you are now faced with a not-so-uncommon reality that many households face. Here's some other options you might not have thought of: I would avoid adding more debt if at all possible. I would first focus on the the cost side. With a good income you can also squeeze every last dollar out of your budget to send them to school. I agree with your dislike of parent loans for the same reasons, plus they don't encourage cost savings and there's no asset to \"\"give back\"\" if school doesn't work out (roughly half of all students that start college don't graduate) I would also avoid borrowing more than 80% of your home's value to avoid PMI or higher loan rates. You also say that you can pay off the HELOC in 5 years - why can you do that but not cash flow the college? Also note that a second mortgage may be worse that a HELOC - the fees will be higher, and you still won't be able to borrow more that what the house is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c55e69f31ac00b6f887ca455e189fdf", "text": "The definitive answer is: It Depends. What are your goals? First and foremost, you need to have at least 3 months expenses in cash or equivalent. (i.e. an investment that you can withdraw from quickly, and without penalty). The good news is that you don't have to come up with it instantly. Set a time frame - one year - for creating this safety net, and pay towards that goal. This is the single most important piece of financial advice you will receive. Now determine what you need to do. For example, you may need a car. Compare interest rates on your student loan and the car loan. Put your cash towards whichever is higher. If you don't need a car or other big ticket item, then you may consider sticking your surplus into the student loans. 50k at $1650 a month will be paid down in about 3 years, which might be a bit long to live the monastic lifestyle. I'd look at paying down the smallest loan first (assuming relatively similar rates), and freeing up that payment for yourself. So if you can pay off 1650 a month, and free up $100 of that in six months, then you can reward yourself with half that surplus, and apply the other half to the next loan. (This is different than some would suggest because you're talking about entering severe spartan mode, which is not sustainable.) Remember that life happens. You'll meet someone. You'll have an accident, your brother will get sick and you'll give him some money to help out. You've got to be prepared for these events, and for these reasons, I don't recommend living that close to the edge. Remember, you're not in default, and you do have the option of continuing to pay the minimum for a long time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d53b38ba7630a757116be108950c63a", "text": "I would definitely pay down the debt first. If it is going to take 15 years to do so, you probably need to allocate more money to paying down debt. Cut expenses by going out to eat less, and keeping spending to the bare necessities. You might even consider getting a second job, just for paying down the debt. If that isn't enough, consider selling off some assets. You should be able to come up with a plan to be debt free (excluding maybe a regular mortgage) within 3-5 years. Once the only debt you have is a home mortgage, then its time to look at putting money towards retirement again. Note, you should not take money out of a 401k or IRA to pay off debt. The costs for doing so are nearly always too great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8518bbfbc923c8590051cff641ee183", "text": "How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbe7e46da5e114025fdbf60720dd3cdb", "text": "I don't think it's all or none. First, 15 year mortgages are sub-3% right now, even for an investment property you'd get under 4%. shop around, do the math, a 1% drop is $1000 a year to start, nothing to sneeze at. Don't let the tax tail wag the decision dog. If you could invest the $100K at a taxable 5.5% in this economy, you would. In this case, that's your return on prepayments on this mortgage. Personally, I'd like to see a refinance and pay down of principal so the cash flow is at least positive. Beyond that, you need to decide how much cash you're comfortable having or not having in savings. I'd also consider when to start investing long term, in equities. (low cost ETFs is what I prefer).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe391156b6c7fcd72d28e3cbe7b1f35e", "text": "A savings account is your best bet. You do not have the time frame to mitigate/absorb risks. The general guideline for investment is 5 years or more. As you state you are no where near close to that time frame.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c8f0cb3eae914971e07ea1db3b9be75", "text": "Plus you already have money in a 529 plan that is meant for college expenses (and cannot be used to pay student loans) - use that money for what it's for. I disagree with @DStanley, as a current college student I would say to take out loans. Most of the time I am against loans though. So WHY? There are very few times you will receive loans at 0% interest (for 4+ years). You have money saved currently, but you do not know what the future entails. If you expend all of your money on tuition and your car breaks down, what do you do? You can not used student loans to pay for your broken car.Student loans, as long as they are subsidized, serve as a wonderful risk buffer. You can pay off your loans with summer internships and retain the initial cash you had for additional activities that make college enjoyable, i.e - Fraternity/ Sorority, clubs, dinners, and social nights. Another benefit to taking these loans would assist in building credit, with an additional caveat being to get a credit card. In general, debt/loans/credit cards are non-beneficial. But, you have to establish debt to allow others to know that you can repay. Establishing this credit rating earlier than later is critical to cheaper interest rates on (say) a mortgage. You have made it through, you have watched your expenses, and you can pay your debt. Finish It. If you do it right, you will not have loans when you graduate, you will have a stunning credit rating, and you will have enjoyed college to its fullest potential (remember, you only really go through it once.) But this is contingent on: Good luck, EDIT: I did not realize the implication of this penalty which made me edit the line above to include: (to the extent you can per year) For now, student loan repayment isn't considered a qualified educational expense. This means that if you withdraw from a 529 to pay your debts, you may be subject to income taxes and penalties.Source Furthermore, Currently, taxpayers who use 529 plan money for anything other than qualified education expenses are subject to a 10% federal tax penalty. Source My advice with this new knowledge, save your 529 if you plan on continuing higher education at a more prestigious school. If you do not, use it later in your undergraduate years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57f49375edc6630c93e584cdd1b96b07", "text": "As mentioned in the comments, there are costs associated with owning & living in an apartment. First you have to pay maintenance charges on a monthly basis and perhaps also property tax. Find out the overall outgoings when you live in that apartment & add the EMI payments to the bank, it should not be way higher than your current rent. As an advantage you are getting an asset when you buy an apartment & rent is a complete loss, ast least financial terms. So, real estate is in general a good idea over paying rent. As for the loan part, personal loans are by far the most expensive of loans as they are in general unsecured loans (but do check with your bank). One way is to try and get a student loan, which should be cheaper. If you can borrow from family that is the best option, you could return the money with perhaps bank fixed deposit rates, it is better to pay family interest than bank. If none of the options are workable, then personal loan is something you need to look at with a clear goal to pay it off as soon as possible and try to take it in stages, as an when you require it and if possible avoid taking all the 15,000/- at once.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee3131e8783e4c310918834d38f1ee1f", "text": "In today's dollars, cost including room and board can total $20K - $60K/yr depending on the school. With college 15 years away, these numbers can double by then. And the annual savings required, adjusted accordingly. If we look at the low end, we're still at $40k/yr or $160k total, and it would be prudent to start saving $10k/yr if possible. It's easy enough to drop the number if 5 years in, you see college costs dropping or rising less quickly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dcea2a043b2b89f705cdb34fec89fe2", "text": "\"As soon as you specify FDIC you immediately eliminate what most people would call investing. The word you use in the title \"\"Parking\"\" is really appropriate. You want to preserve the value. Therefore bank or credit union deposits into either a high yield account or a Certificate of Deposit are the way to go. Because you are not planning on a lot of transactions you should also look at some of the online only banks, of course only those with FDIC coverage. The money may need to be available over the next 2-5 years to cover college tuition If needing it for college tuition is a high probability you could consider putting some of the money in your state's 529 plan. Many states give you a tax deduction for contributions. You need to check how much is the maximum you can contribute in a year. There may be a maximum for your state. Also gift tax provisions have to be considered. You will also want to understand what is the amount you will need to cover tuition and other eligible expenses. There is a big difference between living at home and going to a state school, and going out of state. The good news is that if you have gains and you use the money for permissible expenses, the gains are tax free. Most states have a plan that becomes more conservative as the child gets closer to college, therefore the chance of losses will be low. The plan is trying to avoid having a large drop in value just a the kid hits their late teens, exactly what you are looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9fb33251c7fd33b97c3d2b32a52474b", "text": "Governments only have a few ways to get income: tax income, tax consumption, tax property (cars & boats), tax real estate, or tax services (hotel & meals). The National, state, county, city, and town taxing authorities determine what is taxed and what the rate will be to get enough money to run their share of the government. In general the taxing of real estate is done by the local government, but the ability to tax real estate is granted to them by the state. In the United States the local government decides, generally through a public hearing, what the rate will be. You can usually determine the current rate and tax value of the home prior to purchase. Though some jurisdictions limit the annual growth of value of the property, and then catch it up when the property is sold. That information is also in public records. All taxes are used to build roads, pay for public safety, schools, libraries, parks.. the list is very long. Failure to pay the tax will result in a lien on the property, which can result in your losing the property in a tax sale. Most of the time the bank or mortgage company insists that your monthly payment to them includes the monthly portion of the estimated property tax, and the fire insurance on the property. This is called escrow. This makes sure the money is available when the tax is due. In some places is is paid yearly, on other places every six months. With an escrow account the bank will send the money to the government or insurance company. Here is the big secret: you have been indirectly paying property tax. The owner of the apartment , townhouse, or home you have been renting has been paying the tax from your monthly payment to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed961bc386f62746a9c09a3a9344c4f0", "text": "Frankly, the article is mostly right, but I disagree with his specific recommendation. Why use one of these software services at all? Put your money into a retirement (or other) account and invest it in index funds. Beating index funds over the long run is pretty difficult, and if anyone's going to do it, it won't be someone that treats it like a hobby, regardless of whether you pick stocks yourself or let some software do it for you. I personally think the big value-add from investment advisers only comes in the form of tax and regulation advice. Knowing what kind of tax-exempt accounts exist and what the rules for them are is useful, and often non-trivial to fully grasp and plan for. Also, the investment advisers I've talked to seemed to be pretty knowledgeable about that sort of thing, whereas their understanding of investment concepts like risk/reward tradeoffs, statistics, and portfolio optimization is generally weak.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8924a2b70bf23d3547dd75e8ab830600	Difference between Hedge Fund and Private Equity?	[ { "docid": "7f7ed281d9e2247fd4711722f1855ffd", "text": "Private Equity is simply some type of an investment company, which is owned in a way not accessible to the public. ie: Warren Buffet runs Berkshire Hatheway, which is an investment company which itself is traded on the New York Stock Exchange. This means that anyone can buy shares in the company, and own a small fraction of it. If Warren Buffet owned all the shares of Berkshire Hatheway, it would be a Private Equity company. Note that 'Equity' refers to the ownership of the company itself; a private investment company may simply buy Bonds (which are a form of Debt), in which case, they would not be technically considered a 'Private Equity' company. A Hedge Fund is a very broad term which I don't believe has significant meaning. Technically, it means something along the lines of an investment fund (either public or private) which attempts to hedge the risks of its portfolio, by carefully considering what type of investments it purchased. This refers back to the meaning of 'hedge', ie: 'hedging your bets'. In my opinion, 'Hedge Fund' is not meaningfully different from 'investment fund' or other similar terms. It is just the most popular way to refer to this type of industry at the present time. You can see the trend of using the term 'investment fund' vs 'hedge fund' using this link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=hedge%20fund,investment%20fund Note that the high-point of the use of 'hedge fund' occurred on October 2008, right at the peak of the global financial crisis. The term evokes a certain image of 'high finance' / 'wall-street types' that may exploit various situations (such as tax legislation, or 'secret information') for their own gain. Without a clear definition, however, it is a term without much meaning. If you do a similar comparison between 'hedge fund' and 'private equity', you can see that the two correlate very closely; I believe the term 'private equity' is similarly misused to generally refer to 'investment bankers'. However in that case, 'private equity' has a more clear definition on its own merits.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "593d3f385dbb52c6f01b17d9c60e39a2", "text": "One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0121e07f701f7a675897d8a9cc975db3", "text": ">Nearly 20 years ago in the book Market Wizards, hedge fund manager Michael Steinhardt said the term hedge funds is a misnomer because most funds don’t hedge, and a new name is almost 2 decades overdue. The more apt titles such as Alt In or absolute return funds haven’t seen any traction, so hedge funds seems here to stay. Besides, consider how misnamed mutual funds are. Vanguard is one of the only mutual fund names that remains a mutual ownership structure, so what’s in a name anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b51e15974dd48332f992862cc5d6fab", "text": "\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b611488d1d23e35fd8b1e3ed248e14f", "text": "\"Asset management typically refers to the \"\"product\"\" group e.g. Mutual fund, etf, etc., like invesco offering qqq or some emerging market mutual fund. Capital management is more vague and can refer to a wide range of financial products and services including asset management and stuff like ptfl planning, wealth advisory etc. That said they are both used interchangeably and not like anyone would correct you if you used one vs the other...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f888867b198b061e1afe6774f02c704", "text": "As Ross says, SPX is the index itself. This carries no overheads. It is defined as a capitalization-weighted mixture of the stocks of (about) 500 companies. SPY is an index fund that tries to match the performance of SPX. As an index fund it has several differences from the index:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffd3b0992f0f04b52f518f5941354e39", "text": "The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10b9336b224f113874eff14b7ee9590a", "text": "I don't see that this follows. Capital commitments require that one assess the ability to unwind as information changes - market frictions. Thats why private equity demands a premium. HFT is not investing - it is far closer to market making. In that regard it is a social good. What is of a concern is that they are far less supervised than a market maker. They provide liquidity the way bankers provide loans - when it is not essential. The old adage of an umbrella when it is sunny but take them back at the sign of rain. If there are requirements to commit capital and maintain orderly markets with some oversight on their ability to maintain their capital ratios, a shadow market maker, then they should get to enjoy making a spread in exchange for keeping those spreads relatively tight.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ead7c9267f9e549354648cf5ca4cd186", "text": "\"I though that only some hedge funds operated that way and others were specific vehicles to provide an efficient hedge? This one is described as \"\"betting against chipmakers\"\" and is blaming a substantial loss against one market, so it can't be doing a great job of hedging itself. Though I think we're saying the same thing and just have a different view of the common meaning of \"\"hedge fund\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11d7b3a389522f80d9d899b9bff4ec81", "text": "\"You quickly run into issues of what denotes \"\"similar\"\", and how to construct an appropriate index methodology. For example, do you group all CB arb funds together globally or separate them by country? Is long-bias equity long-short different to no-bias and variable-bias? Is a fund that concentrates on sovereign debt more like a macro fund or a fixed income fund? And so on. By definition, hedge funds try not to mimic their peers, with varying degrees of success. Even if you get through that problem, how do you create the index? You may not be able to get return numbers for all the \"\"similar\"\" funds, and even if you do, how do you weight them? By AUM, or equal weight? There are commercial indices out there (CSFB, Eurekahedge, Marhedge, Barclays, MSCI, etc) but there's no one accepted standard, and it's unlikely that there ever will be as a result. It's certainly interesting to look at your performance versus one of these indices, and many investors do monitor fund performance this way, but to demand strict benchmarking to one of them is a big ask...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dd14465a90edf3ad4f5450dd7ba028f", "text": "Just from my experience and observation... VC there are spikes of activity. Where many deals are closing and board meetings and issues pile up on top of each other and happen all at once. But VC there are lulls where not much is going on. PE is more consistent and predictable in general. Yes of course exceptions arise but I found PE to be more 9 to 5 ish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fca1facc06f3225c3ebc700424e3432", "text": "Colloquially, there's no difference except for the level of risk (which is an estimate anyway). Classically, investment is creating wealth through improvement or production. Purchasing a house with the intent to renovate and sell it for a profit would be an investment, as the house is worth more when you sell than when you bought it. Speculation, on the other hand, is when you hope to make a profit through changes in the market itself. Purchasing a house, letting it sit for 6 months, and selling it for a profit would be speculation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9fc41103a1d03cb7e5841103a6bc8f8", "text": "A hedge fund is such a broad term as to not mean anything in practice. What do you find interesting in finance? Research that, understand that. Then go find the guys who are doing that and ask for a job and take it regardless of how much money it offers. The money is the yardstick, not the goal", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5b994a25ca09a67f011ce562354c85e", "text": "\"I'm not the OP, but I'm happy to give a brief overview. Basically, pre-JOBS act there were a lot of limits on who could make an equity investment in a non-public company (i.e. a startup or even a hedge fund). There were some loopholes, but basically you had to be an 'accredited investor'. An accredited investor was someone who either has made $200,000+ ($300,000+ for married people) for the past two years and expects to make that much again in the current year. Alternately, they could have a net worth of $1 million, excluding the value of their primary residence. There was also a limit of 500 investors for a non-public company before the company had to become public (they didn't really have to IPO, but they did have to file their financials with the SEC, so the effect was basically the same). Finally, non-public companies were prohibited from seeking investment through advertising basically. They couldn't take out an ad in a paper or event send a mass email and say, \"\"Hey, we're looking to raise a $1 million funding round, contact us if you're interested!\"\" Okay, now after the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act changed a) the number and type of investors who could make equity investments in a non-public company b) the regulation of advertising for investments. Post-JOBS private companies could have 2,000 shareholders and 500 of those could be unaccredited (e.g. regular people like you and I). The change in the number of shareholders isn't really that important because it's just shareholders of record, but that's another post for another day. There are still some requirements for unaccredited shareholder, which I don't remember off the top of my head. I think you have to have income of at least $40k. They also changed the solicitation ban, so it's possible that you might see an ad in the WSJ someday for a startup company, venture capital fund, hedge fund, etc. There are some other things it changed, but IMO those are the two most important.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b079876c21d438cce061a82ce8f467", "text": "\"It's not really my field, but I believe it's all the information that doesn't change (i.e. isn't \"\"real-time\"\") about the business of hedge funds. For example, this site quotes: The product maintains comprehensive static data records including assets, depositories, accounts, settlement instructions and a wide range of supporting data...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c828411013510f191bb0f58be880db", "text": "I'm not 100% familiar with the index they're using to measure hedge fund performance, but based on the name alone, comparing market returns to market neutral hedge fund returns seems a bit disingenuous. That doesn't mean the article is wrong, and they have a point about the democratization of data, but still.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
220aa82fef88e11967f5fadd3e1b3036	Deposit cash into US bank account	[ { "docid": "c7cf03316171ccd1ef7f305ef2953a99", "text": "Sure; you can deposit cash. A few notes apply: Does the source of cash need to be declared ? If you deposit more than $10,000 in cash or other negotiable instruments, you'll be asked to complete a form called a Currency Transaction Report (here's the US Government's guidance for consumers about this form). There's some very important information in that guidance document about structuring, which is a fairly serious crime that you can commit if you break up your deposits to avoid reporting. Don't do this. The linked document gives examples. Also don't refuse to make your deposit and walk away when presented with a CTR form. In addition, you are also required to report to Customs and Border Protection when you bring more than $10,000 in or out of the country. If you are caught not doing so, the money may be seized and you could be prosecuted criminally. Many countries have similar requirements, often with different dollar amounts, so it's important to make sure you comply with their laws as well. The information from this reporting goes to the government and is used to enforce finance and tax laws, but there's nothing wrong or illegal about depositing cash as long as you don't evade the reporting requirements. You will not need to declare precisely where the cash comes from, but they will want the information required on the forms. Is it taxable ? Simply depositing cash into your bank account is not taxable. Receiving some forms of income, whether as cash or a bank deposit, is taxable. If you seem to have a large amount of unexplained cash income, it is possible an IRS audit will want an explanation from you as to where it comes from and why it isn't taxable. In short, if the income was taxable, you should have paid taxes on it whether or not you deposit it in a bank account. What is the limit of the deposit ? There is no government limit. An individual bank may have their own limit and/or may charge a fee for larger deposits. You could always call the bank and ask.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ea4890b3e7eff99fd2658e853e07baca", "text": "\"The new information helps a little, but you're still stuck as far as doing exactly what you asked. The question that you really should be asking is \"\"How do I deposit money into my BofA checking account from Italy?\"\" If you can figure that out, then the whole part about your father's AmEx card really becomes irrelevant. He might get that money from a cash advance on his AmEx card or he might get it from somewhere else. I think there's some small chance that if you call BofA and ask the right question, they may give you an answer that will let you make this deposit. I tend to doubt it, but this would at least give you a chance. Other than that, you should probably look into some options based in Italy. For example, get the cash from your father and open a bank account in Italy. Maybe you can buy a pre-paid Visa card with the cash to use while you're there. Maybe use traveler's checks for the rest of your trip. Etc. What is available and what makes sense will still depend on a lot of details that we don't have (like how long you're staying and what type of entry visa you got when you entered Italy).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e84cfcffad37fb6dea2ee57562fe20c", "text": "yes you can open bank account you should have a address in us and personally visit bank to deposite $1500 only to get you a debit card.you are required to maintain min balance of $1500 only. I have done it", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cefda8906aadf05eb9ff42cf1142e13b", "text": "Give a cheque. You can. Your friend would have to deposit this in a Bank that does this service. Not all Banks offer this service in US. It generally would take 1-3 months for the funds to reach. Give a dollar-denominated cheque You can NOT write check on a Rupee account and put USD. You can definitely buy a USD Draft generally payable in the US. There would be some charge for you here and send it by courier, post. It would get paid into your friends account in about a week. Do a SWIFT transfer Yes you can. You may need to walk into a Branch and fill up forms. If the amount is more than specified limit a CA certificate is required. Am I correct in understanding Yes Use my ATM card in the US Yes you can. Specialised money transfer services like Western Union Transfer money out of India is not allowed by Money Transfer services", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bb11528f43919b506fbdf9a93c675b3", "text": "Look for EU banks that have US branches. Open an account there and look for the SWIFT code of your bank in US. Withdraw money using SWIFT US code.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb5105cef9bf56d1edb545ff9441e282", "text": "The data provided in your question is irrelevant. The data that you provided in the comments (that you're physically present in the US while doing the work) is the only relevant information needed to answer your question. You will need to pay taxes in the US for the earnings. The company invoicing the US client will also need to pay taxes in the US for its earnings from these invoices. You can transfer between bank accounts and deposit whatever you want anywhere you want, no-one cares (with respect to the US taxes, check with Indian tax accountant about Indian requirements).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79cd15a7526baa7f02329f478dfe710e", "text": "Banks in the US have to report deposits of more than $10,000, so they'll contact you to complete form 8300 or something. It should not be a problem, though, if you specify that it's someone else's money, not your income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6aa022f401826c82028f3335f5cd8c4d", "text": "I'm going to give the checkmark to Joe, but I wanted to convey my personal experience. I bank with TD in New Jersey and was informed by the teller that I simply needed to endorse the check myself and indicate Parent of Minor. I cannot attest if other banks will accept this, but it at least works for TD and my situation in particular.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a", "text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7661b60cafbf998e95f8e3cebeb7cc8f", "text": "There are good reasons to not go the cash route here (see Jay's answer). If one insists however, at 30 k€ anti-money laundering regulations have to be considered (and are not mentioned by the existing answers so far). Depositing amounts larger than 10 k€ will trigger questions about the source of the money to fight tax evasion and organized crime (splitting the amount may still trigger the process). So prepare good proof concerning the origin of that money and a paper trail that shows it is legal money and that it has been taxed already. I.e. the latest Anti-Money Laundering Directive is supposed to be implemented by national laws, thus including Spain. The European Union Fourth Anti-Money Laundering Directive is the most sweeping AML legislation in Europe in several years. On 25 June 2015, the EU Fourth Directive was enacted, which replaces the previous Third Directive. With a two-year window for implementation, all EU member states must be compliant with the new mandates by 26 June 2017. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d9b8106c6faa5826c974441dda0bf78", "text": "Almost any financial institution has the technical ability to do this (simply called sweeps, auto sweeps, or deposit sweeps); the issue you face is finding an institution that is willing to do it for you. I think you will have the most luck at your primary financial institution where you currently keep the majority of your banking relationship. You will have better luck at small-town banks and credit unions. The mega banks will likely not waver from their established policies. Deposit sweeps are common for business accounts. They are usually tied to a savings account, which is usually held within the same institution, however this is not a requirement. The sweep can send money to any US bank if you can provide the routing number and account number. The sweep will establish a peg balance, or floor balance, on the checking account. At the end of the day, any amount above the peg is swept into the savings account automatically. I doubt you will find what you’re asking for within an online banking system. You will likely have to go into a branch and speak with a personal banker. Explain to them you want to establish a sweep on your checking account and want to send the funds to another financial institution. You will have better luck asking for a peg of $100, or some other small amount. They may not take your request seriously if you want to completely empty the checking account to zero.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c871327905b52c937ddd24c39d5bc41", "text": "\"Depositing above $10,000 in cash into a bank automatically triggers warnings in the banks computer system, and reports are submitted to appropriate authorities. Every bank has to do its, it's the law. If you \"\"structure\"\" your deposits where you put in several cash deposits below $10,000 that's a crime and bank computers are very sensitive to picking up on that. They're so sensitive to structuring that innocent people get flagged by it all the time. So I recommend only depositing $6k or less of that money into banks. What do you want to do with the money? If you want to use it to buy stuff in person at stores then I recommend just using it at the counter instead of credit cards. If you want to buy things online with it then I recommend bitcoin. It's anonymous, the IRS won't know it's yours, and it's easy to buy what you need with bitcoin. You can easily exchange bitcoin for cash among your neighbors using apps like PaxFul, LocalBitcoins, and BitQuick. They'll give you bitcoin which you'd load onto an app called a \"\"wallet\"\", for example Mycelium or Blockchain.info. You can buy just about anything online with bitcoin these days: from computers at newegg, to hotels at expedia, to airplane tickets at cheapair.com, to anything on amazon at 20% off using purse.io, or you can invest it by offer people around the world loans at BTCJam.com and they pay you back with interest. You can hold on to bitcoin as it grows in value, or you can donate it to any of the thousands of charities around the world who accept it. You can even use it to support presidential campaigns (at this time, only Rand Paul's campaign and Joe Biden's SuperPAC accept bitcoin).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab2c8385fbe611ad736f66331f17cbaa", "text": "Every bank and credit union in the US has a Deposit Agreement and Disclosures document, Bank of America is no different. Our general policy is to make funds from your cash and check deposits available to you no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. However, in some cases we place a hold on funds that you deposit by check. A hold results in a delay in the availability of these funds. that sounds great but ... For determining the availability of your deposits, every day is a business day, except Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If you make a deposit on a business day that we are open at one of our financial centers before 2:00 p.m. local time, or at one of our ATMs before 5:00 p.m. local time in the state where we maintain your account, we consider that day to be the day of your deposit. However, if you make a deposit after such times, or on a day when we are not open or that is not a business day, we consider that the deposit was made on the next business day we are open. Some locations have different cutoff times. so if you deposit a check on Friday afternoon, the funds are generally available on Tuesday. but not always... In some cases, we will not make all of the funds that you deposit by check available to you by the first business day after the day of your deposit. Depending on the type of check that you deposit, funds may not be available until the second business day after the day of your deposit. The first $200 of your deposits, however, may be available no later than the first business day after the day of your deposit. If we are not going to make all of the funds from your deposit available by the first business day after the day of your deposit, we generally notify you at the time you make your deposit. We also tell you when the funds will be available. Ok what happens when the funds are available... In many cases, we make funds from your deposited checks available to you sooner than we are able to collect the checks. This means that, from time to time, a deposited check may be returned unpaid after we made the funds available to you. Please keep in mind that even though we make funds from a deposited check available to you and you withdraw the funds, you are still responsible for problems with the deposit. If a check you deposited is returned to us unpaid for any reason, you will have to repay us and we may charge your account for the amount of the check, even if doing so overdraws your account. Fidelity has a similar document: Each check deposited is promptly credited to your account. However, the money may not be available until up to six business days later, and we may decline to honor any debit that is applied against the money before the deposited check has cleared. If a deposited check does not clear, the deposit will be removed from your account, and you are responsible for returning any interest you received on it. I would think that the longer holding period for Fidelity is due to the fact that they want to wait long enough to make sure that the number of times they have to undo investments due to the funds not clearing is nearly zero.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e4d147b2b4432f5dcf87c40276ab22f", "text": "\"Several options are available. She may ask the US bank to issue a debit card (VISA most probably) to her account, and mail this card to Russia. I think this can be done without much problems, though sending anything by mail may be unreliable. After this she just withdraws the money from local ATM. Some withdrawal fee may apply, which may be rather big if the sum of money is big. In big banks (Alfa-bank, Citibank Russia, etc.) are ATMs that allow you to withdraw dollars, and it is better to use one of them to avoid unfavorable exchange rate. She may ask the US bank to transfer the money to her Russian account. I assume the currency on the US bank account is US Dollars. She needs an US dollar account in any Russian bank (this is no problem at all). She should find out from that bank the transfer parameters (реквизиты) for transfering US dollars to her account. This should include, among other info, a \"\"Bank correspondent\"\", and a SWIFT code (or may be two SWIFT codes). After this, she should contact her US bank and find out how can she request the money to be transferred to her Russian bank, providing these transfer parameters. I can think of two problems that may be here. First, the bank may refuse to transfer money without her herself coming to the bank to confirm her identity. (How do they know that a person writing or calling them is she indeed?) However, I guess there should be some workaround for this. Second, with current US sanctions against Russia, the bank may just refuse the transfer or will have do some additional investigations. However, I have heard that bank transfers from US to private persons to Russia are not blocked. Probably it is good to find this out in advance. In addition, the US bank will most probably charge some standard fee for foreign transfer. After this, she should wait for a couple of days, maybe up to week for the money to appear on Russian account. I have done this once some four years ago, and had no problems, though at that time I was in the US, so I just came to the bank myself. The bank employee to whom I talked obviously was unsure whether the transfer parameters were enough (obviously this was a very unusual situation for her), but she took the information from me, and I guess just passed it on to someone more knowledgable. The fee was something about $40. Another option that I might think of is her US bank issuing and mailing her a check for the whole sum, and she trying to cash it here in Russia. This is possible, but very few banks do cash checks here (Citibank Russia is among those that do). The bank will also charge a fee, and it will be comparable to transfer fee. Plus mailing anything is not quite reliable here. She would also have to consider whether she need to pay Russian taxes on this sum. If the sum is big and passes through a bank, I guess Russian tax police may find this out through and question her. If it is withdrawn from a VISA card, I think it will not be noticed, but even in this case she might be required to file a tax herself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33699ea0773d2f8560dc187dfcf52425", "text": "India does allow Resident Indians to open USD accounts. Most leading National and Private Banks offer this. You can receive funds and send funds subject to some norms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe16e2d3273140828bbb106290fdf062", "text": "\"HypoVereinsbank (member of UniCredit group), a few savings banks (\"\"Sparkasse\"\") and VR Banks offer cash (bill) deposit machines. However, it can take a few business days until the deposit is credited to your checking account, which has to be with the same bank. Google for \"\"Bargeldeinzahlungsautomat\"\" (=cash deposit machine). As Duffbeer stated correctly, HSBC Trinkaus which is the German arm of the HSBC group does not operate any ATMs in Germany. In addition they do not share the same bank accounts. So I would recommend going with the classic banks mentioned above.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
12d795a64aaba9a11a8a20f9eb516d58	Should I use a credit repair agency?	[ { "docid": "4d0e09c11b5d89c6c964c99b4066da8a", "text": "Repairing your credit takes time. Companies that offer to do it for you (for money) generally succeed mostly at getting money from you. Nonprofit agencies will help you with advice and encouragement and will not want money from you. They may be able to help you apply for a consolidation loan, but to be honest that is rarely the best first step. Over time, you need to The last step may happen months or years after the first two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f5d5938b69abf99b4c65d4e08c8b232", "text": "\"My sister had a similar problem and went to an actual lawyer, not a \"\"credit repair agency\"\". The lawyers settled her debt for a lot less than she owed, and she also got a bonus: one of the creditors called her repeatedly, even after her lawyers had told them not to. The lawyers ended up getting her an extra $40,000. Combined with the debt settlement, she actually came out ahead. Of course, her credit score went down, but it recovered in a couple of years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e603269a11966858958015d59829137d", "text": "\"Don't use a \"\"credit repair\"\" agency. They are scams. One of the myriad of ways in which they work is by setting you up with a bogus loan, which they will dutifully report you as paying on time. They'll pretend to be a used car dealer or some other credit-based merchant. For a time, this will actually work. This is called \"\"false reporting.\"\" The problem is, the data clearinghouses are not stupid and eventually realize some hole-in-the-wall \"\"car dealer\"\" with no cars on the lot (yes, they do physical inspections as part of the credentialing process, just sometimes they're a little slow about it) is reporting trade lines worth millions of dollars per year. It's a major problem in the industry. But eventually that business loses its fraudulent reporting ability, those trade lines get revoked, and your account gets flagged for a fraud investigation. The repair agency has your money, and you still don't have good credit. Bad news if this all goes down while you're trying to close on a house. You're better off trying to settle your debts (usually for 50%) or declaring bankruptcy altogether. The latter isn't so bad if you're in a stable home, because you won't be able to get an apartment for a while, credit cards or a good deal on auto financing. ED: I just saw what one agency was charging, and can tell you declaring bankruptcy costs only a few hundred dollars more than the repair agency and is 100% guaranteed to get you predictable results as long as you name all your debts up front and aren't getting reamed by student loans. And considering you can't stomach creditors-- well guess what, now you'll have a lawyer to deal with them for you. Anything you accomplish through an agency will eventually be reversed because it's fraudulent. But through bankruptcy, your credit will start improving within two years, the tradeoff being that you won't be able to get a mortgage (at all) or apartment (easily) during that time-- so find a place to hunker down for a few years before you declare.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f8ccf2ef79c578fee2b40d561ed7dd4", "text": "I've kind of been there myself. I stretched my finances for the deposit on a house, and lived off my credit card for a few months to build up what I was short on the deposit. Add some unexpected car repairs, and I ended up with £10k on the card. The problem I had then was that interest on the card ran at around 20%, and although I could meet the interest payments I couldn't clear the £10k. I simply went and talked to my bank. In the UK there are some clear rules about banks giving customers a chance to restructure their debts. That's the BANK doing it, not some shady loan-shark. We went through my finances and established that in principle it was repayable. So I got a 2-year unsecured loan at around 5%, cleared the card, and spent the next 2 years paying off a loan that I could afford. My credit score is still aces. Forget the loan-sharks. Talk to your bank. If they're crap, talk to another bank. If no bank is going to help you, consider bankrupcy as per advice above. Debt restructuring companies are ALWAYS a con, no exceptions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8260b3da4de9d24ab654587b5d649aa", "text": "\"So you are in IT, that is great news because you can earn a fabulous income. The part time is not great, but you can use this to your advantage. You can get another job or three to boost your income in the short term. In the long term you should be able to find a better paying job fairly easily. There is one way to never deal with creditors again: never borrow money again. Its pretty damn simple and from the suggestions of your post you don't seem to be very good at handling credit. This would make you fairly normal. 78% of US households don't have $1000 saved. How are they going to handle a brake job/broken dryer/emergency room visit? Those things happen. Cut your lifestyle to nothing, earn money and save it. Say you have 2000 saved up. Then a creditor calls saying you owe 5K. Tell me you are willing to settle for the 2K you have saved. If they don't, hang up. If they are willing getting it writing and pay by a method that insulates you from further charges. Boom one out of the way and keep going. You will be 1099'd for some income, but it is a easy way to \"\"earn\"\" extra money. This will all work if you commit yourself to never again borrowing money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "401f7428ed931f735623b09ea8b9897f", "text": "\"Here's what my wife and I did. First, we stopped using credit cards and got rid of all other expenses that we absolutely didn't need. A few examples: cable TV, home phone, high end internet - all shut off. We changed our cell phone plan to a cheap one and stopped going out to restaurants or bars. We also got rid of the cars that had payments on them and replaced them with ones we paid cash for. Probably the most painful thing for me was selling a 2 year old 'vette and replacing it with a 5 year old random 4 door. Some people might tell you don't do this because older cars need repairs. Fact is, nearly all cars are going to need repairs. It's just a matter of whether you are also making payments on it when they need them and if you can discipline yourself enough to save up a bit to cover those. After doing all this the only payments we had to make were for the house (plus electric/gas/water) and the debt we had accumulated. I'd say that if you have the option to move back into your parent's house then do it. Yes, it will suck for a while but you'll be able to pay everything off so much faster. Just make sure to help around the house. Ignore the guys saying that this tanks your score and will make getting a house difficult. Although they are right that it will drop your score the fact is that you aren't in any position to make large purchases anyway and won't be for quite some time, so it really doesn't matter. Your number one goal is to dig yourself out of this hole, not engage in activity that will keep you in it. Next, if you are only working part time then you need to do one of two things. Either get a full time job or go find a second part time one. The preference is obviously on the first, which you should be able to do in your spare time. If, for some reason, you don't have the tech skills necessary to do this then go find any part time job you can. It took us about 3 years to finally pay everything (except the house) off - we owed a lot. During that time everything we bought was paid for in cash with the vast majority of our money going to pay off those accounts. Once the final account was paid off, I did go ahead and get a credit card. I made very minor purchases on it - mostly just gas - and paid it off a few days before it was due each month. Every 4 months they increased my limit. After around 18 months of using that one card my credit score was back in the 700+ range and with no debt other than the mortgage. *note: I echo what others have said about \"\"Credit Repair\"\" companies. Anything they can do, you can too. It's a matter of cutting costs, living within your means and paying the bills. If the interest rates are killing you, then try to get a consolidation loan. If you can't do that then negotiate settlements with them, just get everything in writing prior to making a payment on it if you go this route. BTW, make sure you actually can't pay them before attempting to settle.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0ebbc7d9281d7add4b0ad7e0767e2ac", "text": "\"I think you already have a lot of good ideas here. I also don't agree with going with a company to \"\"repair\"\" your credit. They don't have any secret method on how to do so anyway, it takes time and hard work. Cut out things that you are more luxury items. Cable for me is a must (Haha) but I can go without having HBO, showtime, etc. Make a list of the things you currently pay for and you will be able to see exactly what you can't \"\"live without\"\" and what you can live without. The good thing nowadays there's so many side gig options available! Check out this article here: https://www.learnvest.com/2017/06/this-is-how-much-you-could-make-through-airbnb-uber-and-7-other-popular-side-gigs. This goes into detail on how much you can make on these sites on a monthly average. Since you're in IT, you can use fiverr! I've used fiverr a lot of projects, you create your own deadlines, work schedule, you accept the jobs you want, similar to your UBer and Lyft but Fiverr has a lot of contractors with a variety of skills specifically in IT, lots of demand for web developers not sure what IT field you're in. Hope this helps! Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f60f520231c8c33a0095bb8e007d774e", "text": ">That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. If that were true, checking your credit report regularly would be straight forward and free. However, the credit agencies have turned insuring your credit report is actuate into a revenue stream. You can see raw data that goes into your score once a year, because the agencies are required by law to provide that you. In past the agencies have been criticized for trying to trick people into buying their services when they request their annual free report (see [freecreditreport.com vs annualcreditreport.com](http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/02/24/want-to-see-your-credit-report-for-free-freecreditreportcom-vs-annualcreditreportcom/)). If you want to check the accuracy of credit report more than once a year, you have to pay. If you want to know your score, you have to pay, although many credit cards offer this as a perk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "057aa1b53aedbec56430c4915904f3a5", "text": "From an Indian perspective, this is what I would do. This typically would not only keep your credit score healthy but also give you additional benefits on spends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0f27d3d497769d2b2fda5a0d8869bff", "text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "064968007f916053f1cc6b191d53d323", "text": "You should pull your credit report from all the credit reporting agencies annually to make sure only the accounts you know of are being reported.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9be848b4054ffe1f5af563fcd6422f6", "text": "\"First of all, whatever you do, DON'T PAY! Credit reporting agencies operate on aged records, and paying it now will most certainly not improve your score. For example, let's say that you had an unpaid debt that was reported as a \"\"charge-off\"\" to the credit bureaus. After, say, six months, the negative effect on your score is reduced. It is reduced even further after a year or two, and after two years, the negative effect on your score is negligible. Now, say you were to pay the debt after the two years. This would \"\"refresh\"\" the record, and show as a \"\"paid charge-off\"\". Sure, now it shows as paid, but it also shows the date of the record as being today, which increases the effect on your credit drastically. In other words, you would have just shot yourself in the foot, big-time. As others have noted, the best option is to dispute the item. If, for some reason, it isn't removed, you are allowed to submit an annotation to the item, explaining your side of the story. Anyone pulling your credit record would see this note, which can help you in some instances. In any case, these scam artists don't deserve your money. Finally, you should check who is the local ombusdman, and report this agent to them. She could lose her license for such a practice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e18a6ca79cdbe05daed214257d18350c", "text": "\"This is somewhat unbelievable. I mean if you had a business of collecting debts, wouldn't you want to collect said debts? Rather than attempting to browbeat people with these delinquent debts into paying, you have someone volunteering to pay. Would you want to service that client? This would not happen in just about any other industry, but such is the lunacy of debt collecting. The big question is why do you need this cleared off your credit? If it is just for a credit score, it probably is not as important as your more recent entries. I would just wait it out, until 7 years has passed, and you can then write the reporting agencies to remove it from your credit. If you are attempting to buy a home or similarly large purpose and the mortgage company is insisting that you deal with this, then I would do the following: Write the company to address the issue. This has to be certified/return receipt requested. If they respond, pay it and insist that it be marked as paid in full on your credit. I would do this with a money order or cashiers check. Done. Dispute the charge with the credit reporting agencies, providing the documentation of no response. This should remove the item from your credit. Provide this documentation to the mortgage broker. This should remove any hangup they might have. Optional: Sue the company in small claims court. This will take a bit of time and money, but it should yield a profit. There was a post on here a few days ago about how to do this. Make part of any settlement to have your name cleared of the debt. It is counterproductive to fall into the trap of the pursuit of a perfect credit score. A person with a 750 often receives the same rate options as a person with 850. Also your relationship with a particular lender could trump your credit score. Currently I am \"\"enjoying\"\" the highest credit score of my life, over 820. Do you know how I did it? I got out of debt (including paying off the mortgage) and I have no intentions of ever going into debt for anything. So why does it matter? It is a bit ridiculous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f701d2150bdb4cf1031c23205676031e", "text": "Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83e09cdedfa4bb0235f21d95901de899", "text": "While everything can be fixed in the end, and you can usually get all your money back, recovering from identity theft can take months or years. In the meantime, these are some of the things which you might not be able to do: In addition, you could face the following events: For all that, checking your credit report / score once or twice a year is probably enough. If you're planning on a major purchase, though, you should get a copy of your full credit report from all three major bureaus (Equifax, Transunion and Experian) a few months ahead of time. Even if everything on them is kosher, having that information on hand will give you a leg up when you go for financing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0efef139629d337d3177362333fd3c2", "text": "so what do you think of this article? we hope you can take the time to post your comments and reactions below. that way, we can help all those who are planning to sign up for credit repair services or are interested to take matters into their own hands in terms of paying off their credit obligations, once and for all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe4dfb6aee2e80172a6ada4b541093e6", "text": "\"If you are the type of person that gets drawn in to \"\"suspect\"\" offers, then it is conceivable that if you are not signing the services offered your credit would be improved as your long term credit strengthens and the number of new lines of credit are reduced. But if you just throw it all away anyway then it is unlikely to help improve your score. But there is no direct impact on your credit score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e17ffc2a0f6e9a51037f2a78ea0f3f8a", "text": "Title agencies perform several things: Research the title for defects. You may not know what you're looking at, unless you're a real-estate professional, but some titles have strings attached to them (like, conditions for resale, usage, changes, etc). Research title issues (like misrepresentation of ownership, misrepresentation of the actual property titled, misrepresentation of conditions). Again, not being a professional in the domain, you might not understand the text you're looking at. Research liens. Those are usually have to be recorded (i.e.: the title company won't necessarily find a lien if it wasn't recorded with the county). Cover your a$$. And the bank's. They provide title insurance that guarantees your money back if they missed something they were supposed to find. The title insurance is usually required for a mortgaged transaction. While I understand why you would think you can do it, most people cannot. Even if they think they can - they cannot. In many areas this research cannot be done online, for example in California - you have to go to the county recorder office to look things up (for legal reasons, in CA counties are not allowed to provide access to certain information without verification of who's accessing). It may be worth your while to pay someone to do it, even if you can do it yourself, because your time is more valuable. Also, keep in mind that while you may trust your abilities - your bank won't. So you may be able to do your own due diligence - but the bank needs to do its own. Specifically to Detroit - the city is bankrupt. Every $100K counts for them. I'm surprised they only charge $6 per search, but that is probably limited by the State law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6de2264a0a9d82015be6c5d897c27ebd", "text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc0e489fbb93500c2943f2744bbcc5e7", "text": "I have never seen any of my mobile phone providers report any data to any credit agency. They tend to only do that if you don't pay on time. Maybe sometimes it helps, but from my experience over the last decade - it must be some very rare times.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0529164de42f2b3e6ba64aae64e4b0fd", "text": "Depends how you're doing the math. The actual damage done so far is zero or near zero. You're valuing potential damage. If your concern is fixing the error then the damage wouldn't be monetary - it'd be credit repair in the case of a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a5a1da92420013f72c201f2ccd6593c", "text": "\"I can't think of any conceivable circumstance in which the banker's advice would be true. (edit: Actually, yes I can, but things haven't worked that way since 1899 so his information is a little stale. Credit bureaus got their start by only reporting information about bad debtors.) The bureaus only store on your file what gets reported to them by the institution who extended you the credit. This reporting tends to happen at 30, 60 or 90-day intervals, depending on the contract the bureau has with that institution. All credit accounts are \"\"real\"\" from the day you open them. I suspect the banker might be under the misguided impression the account doesn't show up on your report (become \"\"real\"\") until you miss a payment, which forces the institution to report it, but this is incorrect-- the institution won't report it until the 30-day mark at the earliest, whether or not you miss a payment or pay it in full. The cynic in me suspects this banker might give customers such advice to sabotage their credit so he can sell them higher-interest loans. UDAAP laws were created for a reason.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b47f2ad1adaf4fa4a9fd70cf81e8ac01	Calculate time to reach investment goals given starting balance?	[ { "docid": "3d5a8298c41dbfe1d3ded257f82ae06b", "text": "The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f44be813afb8afafb925d4a8937b0c3", "text": "\"Here's a formula; I had to go over to SEMath, use their MathJax to compose the answer and then paste this screen shot. As a result, I can't fix a typo: \"\"ST\"\" is the same as \"\"St\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c98c907645a6397699ba1a808f04ba47", "text": "Fairly straightforward to match the result from the calculator soup link. There is a formula to calculate n from the future value s (using natural logs) In Excel This was derived as shown To calculate n from the inflation-adjusted future value si requires using a solver since an algebraic formula cannot be formulated. As demonstrated Calculations done using Mathematica 7.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5c5700d815d1ffe9510d788c7d2f1a85", "text": "Yes, assuming that your cash flow is constantly of size 5 and initial investment is 100, the following applies: IRR of 5% over 3 years: Value of CashFlows: 4.7619 + 4.5351 + 4.3192 = 13.6162 NPV: 100 - 13.6162 = 86.3838 Continuous compounding: 86.3838 * (1.05^3) = 100", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4c8cbc3034a103d9df73fef25e0fa3a", "text": "\"When using Time Value of Money equations, you need to know when the flow starts. A mortgage for example, has a first payment at the end of the first time period, usually 1 month. For savings, one can start the account with a deposit of course, or start by saying \"\"I will deposit $XXX at the end of each month. The answer really depends on the exact details of the situation. In your example, I'm inclined to suggest first flow is 1 year out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "100c16089b98c6da4bdec9e3d52ba91b", "text": "\"The raw question is as follows: \"\"You will be recommending a purposed portfolio to an investment committee (my class). The committee runs a foundation that has an asset base of $4,000,000. The foundations' dual mandates are to (a) preserve capital and (b) to fund $200,000 worth of scholarships. The foundation has a third objective, which is to grow its asset base over time.\"\" The rest of the assignment lays out the format and headings for the sections of the presentation. Thanks, by the way - it's an 8 week accelerated course and I've been out sick for two weeks. I've been trying to teach myself this stuff, including the excel calculations for the past few weeks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1df0824cd1106c15f22942b08b7f6d3e", "text": "Using a simple investment calculator to get a sense of scale here, to have 70k total, including the 500 a month invested, after ten years you just need returns of 2%. To earn 70k on top of the money invested you would need returns over 20%. To do that in five years you would need over 50% annual return. That is quite a big difference. Annualized returns of 20% would require high risk and a very large amount of time invested, skill and luck. 2% returns can be nearly guaranteed without much effort. I would encourage you to think about your money more holistically. If you get very unlucky with investments and don't make any money will you not go on the vacations even if your income allows? That doesn't make a lot of sense. As always, spend all your money with the current and future in mind. Investment return Euros are no different from any other Euros. At that point, the advice is the same for all investors try to get as much return as possible for the risk you are comfortable with. You seem to have a high tolerance for risk. Generally, for investors with a high risk tolerance a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks (with maybe a small amount of bonds, other investments) will give the most return over the long term for the risk taken. After that generally the next most useful way to boost your returns is to try to avoid taxes which is why we talk about 401(k)s so much around here. Each European country has different tax law, but please ask questions here about your own country as well as you mention money.se could use more ex-US questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41e358f0c4f17a2e8510b504eef1f6d2", "text": "Retirement calculation, in general, should be based on the amount of money needed per year/month and the expected life expectancy. Life expectancy, if calculated to 90 years (let's say) indicates that post retirement age (60 yrs.) your accumulated/invested money should generate adequate income to cover your expenses till 90 years. The problem in general is not how long you shall live but what would be your expected spending from retirement to end of life expectancy. The idea is at the minimum your investments should generate income that is inflation adjusted. One way to do this is to consider your monthly expense now i.e. the expense that is absolute minimum for carrying on (food, electricity, water, medicines, household consumables, car petrol, insurance, servicing, entertainment, newspaper etc.) this does not contain the amortizable liabilities (home loan, child's education, other debts). It is better to take this amount per family rather than per person and yearly rather than monthly (as we tend to miss a lot of yearly expenses). This amount that you need today will increase at a Compounded Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of the average inflation. For example, if today you spend 100 per year in 7 years you will need to spend appx. 200 at 10% inflation. Now, your investments will not increase post your retirement, so your current investment needs to do two things (1) give you your yearly requirement (2) grow by a fixed amount so that next year it can give you CAGR adjusted returns. In general, this kind of investment grows by high net amounts initially and slowly the growth decrease. The above can be calculated by Net Present value (NPV) formulae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value). The key is to remember that the money that is invested when you retire should be able to give you inflation adjusted returns to cover your yearly expenses. How much money you need depends on your life style/expectation and how much return is received depends on the instruments that you invest on. As for your question above on the difference between the age of you and your spouse, it better to go with the consolidated family requirement and get an idea of how much investment is necessary and provision the same as soon as possible from your as well as your spouse's income. Hope this helps.- thanks", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f223dd9cf545da0fdadcbc3847f769e", "text": "Basically you'd take all the companies in a given universe (like the S&P 500 or the Russell 3000) and instead of weighting them by market cap as they are currently done, you would weight by an alternative measure. Right now, if you're invested in an index that is market cap weighted, you're effectively momentum chasing. If a stock runs up, you're going to have a higher weight in your portfolio because of it (but only after the increase). An alternative that OppenheimerFunds has come up with is using revenue-weighting. That way you're using company fundamentals and only when the fundamentals are improving do you increase the weight in your portfolio. I haven't yet seen any research that explores weighting by other fundamentals. I would think that revenues aren't perfect either and that you might want to weight by Net Income. Or to go several steps further, by year over year Free Cash Flow growth. It could be a seminal paper if you are the one who empirically identifies a better weighting methodology and then have everyone else fight over the theoretical underpinnings. This is effectively what goes into Smart Beta investing: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smart-beta.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37b6ad0518ebc7f4b83f9bd343b4f4fd", "text": "When calculating the NPV, is there anything I need to do in between the project start date outlay (Nov 2017), and the first cash inflow (July 2019). Do I need to discount the cashflow to the present, and if so, how? Yes, you need to discount every cash flow to the present time, not just the first one. When discounting cash flows, the appropriate discount rate needs to represent the opportunity cost of the initial cash outlay. Meaning if you were to use that money for something else, what rate of return would you expect? You could be safe and assume only a risk-free return (like 2-3%) or use the average rate of return of other investments (e.g. 10-15%). Another common approach is to use your cost of capital if you're raising funds for the project, or would instead have use the funds to pay off existing debt. Once you find a relevant discount rate, then just discount each cash flow by dividing them by e^rt, where r is the annualized discount rate (e.g. 0.10 for 10%) and t is the decimal number of years between now and the cash flow (e.g. 1.5 for 18 months)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7ac74f7905d5fbd9326fa140ce341c1", "text": "A couple ideas: Use excel - it has an IRR (internal rate of return) that can handle a table of inputs as you describe, along with dates deposited to give you a precise number. Go simple - track total deposits over the year, assume half of that was present in January. So, for example, your account started the year with $10k, ended with $15k, but you deposited $4k over the year. It should be clear the return (gain) is $1k, right? But it's not 10%, as you added during the year. I'd divide $1k/$12k for an 8.3% return. Not knowing how your deposits were structured, the true number lies between the 10% and 6.7% as extremes. You'll find as you get older and have a higher balance, this fast method gaining accuracy, as your deposits are a tinier fraction of your account and likely spread out pretty smoothly over the year anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c59227ca475715a45c6c73bc1bac7816", "text": "The author is using the simple Dietz method, (alternatively the modified Dietz), with the assumption that the net cash-flow occurs halfway through the time period. Let's say the time period is one year for illustration, so the cash-flow would be at the end of the second quarter. The money-weighted method gives a more accurate return, but has to be solved by trial-and-error or using a computer. The money-weighted return is 11.2718 % and the simple or modified Dietz return is 11.2676 %. When the sums are done backwards to check, the Dietz is half a dollar out with a final value of $11,999.50 while the money-weighted return recalculates exactly $12,000. It is worth pointing out that the return changes if the cash-flow is not in the middle of the time period. A case with the cash-flow at the end of Q3 is added to illustrate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f339181a8d572823cf74602bb8c2ac95", "text": "The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d96196ef83d94bf00b3b41436799afda", "text": "Using your Time Value of Money functions on your calculator N = 3x2 = 6 PV = -914 PMT = (.16 x 1000)/2 = 80 FV = 1000 Compute I/Y Or Step by step calculations 1) Compute the PV of (FV of Bond)1000 in (3x2)6 periods at (16%/2)8% with no payments 2) Compute the PV of an Annuity of (.16/2x1000)$80 payments over (3x2)6 periods with an interest rate of (16%/2)8% and 0 Future Value 3) Combine the values from Steps 1 and 2", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd01dc792e5e107c7aa7065b5a85f17e", "text": "I would read any and all of the John Bogle books. Essentially: We know the market will rise and fall. We just don't know when specifically. For the most part it is impossible to time the market. He would advocate an asset allocation approach to investing. So much to bonds, tbills, S&P500 index, NASDAQ index. In your case you could start out with 10% of your portfolio each in S&P500 and NASDAQ. Had you done that, you would have achieved growth of 17% and 27% respectively. The growth on either one of those funds would have probably dwarfed the growth on the entire rest of your portfolio. BTW 2013 and 2014 were also very good years, with 2015 being mostly flat. In the past you have avoided risk in the market to achieve the detrimental effects of inflation and stagnant money. Don't make the same mistakes going forward.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f750e98ac42cb2c1e3eca83071e59030", "text": "\"Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an \"\"aggressive investor\"\" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35a4bbdf656a4b0e349eb5bf63dd1e6d", "text": "\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6c0b5e0f25119d23542d4ae5d8c3c1fb	How to measure a currencies valuation or devaluation in relevance to itself	[ { "docid": "9f910dd25fe2c3ef06ed799d1f813b10", "text": "\"It's very hard to measure the worth of an abstract concept like money, particularly over long periods of time. In the modern era we have things like the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in the United States, where the Bureau of Labor Statistics literally sends \"\"shoppers\"\" out to find prices of things and surveys people to find out what they buy. This results in a variety of \"\"indexes\"\" which variously get reported by media outlets as \"\"inflation\"\" (or \"\"deflation\"\" if the change in value goes the other way). There are also other measurements available like the MIT Billion Prices Project which attempt to make their own reading of the \"\"worth\"\" of currencies. Those kinds of things are about the only ways to measure a currency's change in \"\"value to itself\"\" because a currency is basically only worth what one can buy with it. While it isn't \"\"all the world's currencies combined\"\", there is a concept of the International Monetary Fund's \"\"Special Drawing Rights (SDR)\"\", which is a basket of five currencies used by world central banks to help \"\"back\"\" each other's currencies, and is (very) occasionally used as a unit of currency for international contracts. One might be able to compare the price of one currency to that of the SDR, or even to any other weighted average of world currencies that one wanted, but I don't think it's done nearly as often as comparing currencies to the basket of goods one can buy to find \"\"inflation\"\". Even though one might think what would be important to measure would be overall Money Supply Inflation, much more often people care more about measuring Price Inflation. (Occasionally people worry about Wage Inflation, but generally that's considered a result of high Price Inflation.) In order to try to keep this on topic as a \"\"personal finance\"\" thing rather than an \"\"economics\"\" thing, I guess the question is: Why do you want to know? If you have some assets in a particular currency, you probably care most about what you'll be able to buy with them in the future when you want or need to spend them. In that sense, it's inflation that you're likely caring about the most. If you're trying to figure out which currency to keep your assets in, it largely depends on what currency your future expenses are likely to be in, though I can imagine that one might want to move out of a particular currency if there's a lot of political instability that you're expecting to lead to high inflation in a currency for a time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05fb22bec39ba639a5e5e1d1d355b2fe", "text": "The measure of change of value of a currency in relation to itself is inflation (or deflation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f805fba133d2272947714245b4c446", "text": "As the value of a currency declines, commodities, priced in that currency, will rise. The two best commodities to see a change in would be oil and gold.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7c5e4cc3f975021d306cac2f5730af64", "text": "It's very simple. Use USDSGD. Here's why: Presenting profits/losses in other currencies or denominations can be useful if you want to sketch out the profit/loss you made due to foreign currency exposure but depending on the audience of your app this may sometimes confuse people (like yourself).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa74b4578872b3d54c02ec58e7f4d678", "text": "If you look at the value as a composite, as Graham seems to, then look at its constituent parts (which you can get off any financials sheet they file with the SEC): For example, if you have a fictitious company with: Compared to the US GDP (~$15T) you have approximately: Now, scale those numbers to a region with a GDP of, say, $500B (like Belgium), the resultant numbers would be:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad0187493c3ae900e0502326a87747e6", "text": "\"We measure the value of gold by comparing it to other things. Sorry, but there is no better answer than that. There is no gold standard (pun intended) by which objects can be measured in value because \"\"value\"\" is a subjective term. It would be comparable to asking how funny is an object. Different objects are funny to different people. Even if we gathered all the really \"\"funny\"\" object together, there is no guaranty those objects would be funny next year - unless we all agreed they were as part of a social contract. Which is basically what we do with currency. While gold does not need a social contract in order for it to retain its value, this is only because it is has been (1) very useful and (2) rare. If either of these two factors change, the value of gold will change - which it has on several occasions. WARRING: Rant about \"\"Intrinsic Value\"\" of gold below. Gold has no \"\"intrinsic\"\" value. None whatsoever. \"\"Intrinsic value\"\" makes just as much sense as a \"\"cat dog\"\" animal. \"\"Dog\"\" and \"\"cat\"\" are referring to two mutually exclusive animals, therefore a \"\"cat dog\"\" is a nonsensical term. Intrinsic Value: \"\"The actual value of a company or an asset based on an underlying perception of its true value ...\"\" Intrinsic value is perceived, which means it is worth whatever you, or a group of people, think it is. Intrinsic value has nothing, I repeat, absolutely nothing, to do with reality. The most obvious example of this is the purchase of a copy-right. You are assigning an intrinsic value to a copy-right by purchasing it. However, when you purchase a copy-right you are not buying ink on a page, you are purchasing an idea. Someone's imaginings that, for all intensive purposes, doesn't even exist in reality! By definition, things that do not exist do not have \"\"intrinsic\"\" properties - because things that don't exist, don't have any natural properties at all. \"\"Intrinsic\"\" according to Websters Dictionary: \"\"Belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing ... (the intrinsic brightness of a star).\"\" An intrinsic property of an object is something we know that exists because it is a natural property of that object. Suns emit light, we know this because we can measure the light coming from it. It is not subjective. \"\"Intrinsic Value\"\" by definition is the OPPOSITE of \"\"Intrinsic\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aa25f79257a84fcd385258e82e269d4", "text": "When we speak about a product or service, we generally refer to its value. Currency, while neither a product or service, has its own value. As the value of currency goes down, the price of products bought by that currency will go up. You could consider the price of a product or service the value of the product multiplied by the value of the currency. For your first example, we compare two cars, one bought in 1990, and one bought in 2015. Each car has the same features (AC, radio, ABS, etc). We can say that, when these products were new, each had the same value. However, we can deduce that since the 1990 car cost $100, and the 2015 car cost $400, that there has been 75% inflation over 25 years. Comparing prices over time helps identify the inflation (or devaluation of currency) that an economy is experiencing. In regards to your second question, you can say that there was 7% inflation over five years (total). Keep in mind that these are absolute cumulative values. It doesn't mean that there was a 7% increase year over year (that would be 35% inflation over five years), but simply that the absolute value of the dollar has changed 7% over those five years. The sum of the percentages over those five years will be less than 7%, because inflation is measured yearly, but the total cumulative change is 7% from the original value. To put that in perspective, say that you have $100 in 2010, with an expected 7% inflation by 2015, which means that your $100 will be worth $93 in 2015. This means that the yearly inflation would be about 1.5% for five years, resulting in a total of 7% inflation over five years. Note that you still have a hundred dollar bill in your pocket that you've saved for five years, but now that money can buy less product. For example, if you say that $100 buys 50 gallons of gasoline ($2/gallon) in 2010, you will only be able to afford 46.5 gallons with that same bill in 2015 ($2.15/gallon). As you can see, the 7% inflation caused a 7% increase in gasoline prices. In other words, if the value of the car remained the same, its actual price would go up, because the value stayed the same. However, it's more likely that the car's value will decrease significantly in those five years (perhaps as much as 50% or more in some cases), but its price would be higher than it would have been without inflation. If the car's value had dropped 50% (so $50 in original year prices), then it would have a higher price (50 value * 1.07 currency ratio = $53.50). Note that even though its value has decreased by half, its price has not decreased by 50%, because it was hoisted up by inflation. For your final question, the purpose of a loan is so that the loaner will make a profit from the transaction. Consider your prior example where there was 7% inflation over five years. That means that a loan for $100 in 2010 would only be worth $93 in 2015. Interest is how loans combat this loss of value (as well as to earn some profit), so if the loaner expects 7% inflation over five years, they'll charge some higher interest (say 8-10%, or even more), so that when you pay them back on time, they'll come out ahead, or they might use more advanced schemes, like adjustable rates, etc. So, interest rates will naturally be lower when forecasted inflation is lower, and higher when forecasted inflation is higher. The best time to get a loan is when interest rates are low-- if you get locked into a high interest loan and inflation stalls, they will make more money off of you (because the currency has more value), while if inflation skyrockets, your loan will be worth less to loaner. However, they're usually really good about predicting inflation, so it would take an incredible amount of inflation to actually come out on top of a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b648eff366f6e5637857115c7754cff1", "text": "Other metrics like Price/Book Value or Price/Sales can be used to determine if a company has above average valuations and would be classified as growth or below average valuations and be classified as value. Fama and French's 3 Factor model would be one example that was studied a great deal using an inverse of Price/Book I believe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63bc244c29598b0de41cdc7a48443d51", "text": "\"I hate to be the guy that says this but if you are indeed competing in the CFAI Research Challenge it is probably important. Remember you cannot use CFA as a noun (CFA's) you can only use it as an adjective ie a CFA charterholder. As far as you question, what was provided below is pretty much all you need. Security Analysis, anything from the NYU professor and Greenwald stuff (although Greenwald, like someone already mentioned, is balance sheet focused) will get you where you need to go. I am not sure what you mean by \"\"exotic valuation\"\" methods. As far as I know, the three most accepted and used valuation models by practitioners are the DCF model, the multiple model and the residual income model. DCF uses short term cash flows and a terminal value discounted to today at some discount rate. The multiple model puts some multiple on earnings, book value, cash flow to arrive at a fair value. The residual model is the opposite of the DCF. One starts with the assets book value, then accrues all income generated in excess of WACC from all future periods. Find some CFAI Level 2 books on equity and bond valuation. They pretty much cover it all. And for a closing note, to perform well in investing and valuing companies it is not about what valuation model you use. Focus on WHY an asset should be worth what you think it is worth, not HOW you get to some valuation of that asset. Just my two cents.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3048fcd106371966f419a784a95ddf8e", "text": "The closest thing that you are looking for would be FOREX exchanges. Currency value is affected by the relative growth of economies among other things, and the arbritrage of currencies would enable you to speculate on the relative growth of an individual economy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1df8591be32d4babf6b7a50426ebacda", "text": "Yes - it's called the rate of inflation. The rate of return over the rate of inflation is called the real rate of return. So if a currency experiences a 2% rate of inflation, and your investment makes a 3% rate of return, your real rate of return is only 1%. One problem is that inflation is always backwards-looking, while investment returns are always forward-looking. There are ways to calculate an expected rate of inflation from foreign exchange futures and other market instruments, though. That said, when comparing investments, typically all investments are in the same currency, so the effect of inflation is the same, and inflation makes no difference in a comparative analysis. When comparing investments in different currencies, then the rate of inflation may become important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d21c1340705ac92ff3ff9454d231cd7d", "text": "Speaking from stock market point of view, superficially, TA is similarly applicable to day trading, short term, medium term and long term. You may use different indicators in FX compared to the stock market, but I would expect they are largely the same types of things - direction indicators, momentum indicators, spread indicators, divergence indicators. The key thing with TA or even when trading anything, is that when you have developed a system, that you back test it, to prove that it will work in bear, bull and stagnant markets. I have simple systems that are fine in strong bull markets but really poor in stagnant markets. Also have a trading plan. Know when you are going to exit and enter your trades, what criteria and what position size. Understand how much you are risking on each trade and actively manage your risk. I urge caution over your statement ... one weakened by parting the political union but ought to bounce back ... We (my UK based IT business) have already lost two potential clients due to Brexit. These companies are in FinServ and have no idea of what is going to happen, so I would respectfully suggest that you may have less knowledge than professionals, who deal in currency and property ... but one premise of TA is that you let the chart tell you what is happening. In any case trade well, and with a plan!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e61919cc2567f96df4868a9c4de17281", "text": "At any instant, three currencies will have exchange rates so if I know the rate between A and B, and B to C, the A to C rate is easily calculated. You need X pounds, so at that moment, you are subject to the exchange rate right then. It's not a deal or bargain, although it may look better in hindsight if the currencies move after some time has passed. But if a currency is going to depreciate, and you have the foresight to know such things, you'd already be wealthy and not visiting here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c55f975e9b587b8cb8418178c52d1a6", "text": "\"Other things equal is sometimes referred to as \"\"ceteris paribus\"\" - the scenario where you compare two currencies (or things) under the assumption that all other factors that could effect those currencies (earthquakes, revolutions, currency crises ect) are not ocurring. Its like using a control group in a lab. \"\"Real interest rates\"\" means the rate of that countries interest rate, accounting for inflation. \"\"Proportional to the strength of its home currency\"\" is referring to how countries with higher rates of interest tend to have stronger currencies (relative to other currencies) because foreign investment/capital will flood into the country seeking those higher rates of return - excess demand for the currency will cause it to appreciate. So this is also true in reverse, as capital will tend to leave a country will ultra-low interest rates.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "399db64a304c7fc66c5a72efd53d8696", "text": "How you use the metric is super important. Because it subtracts cash, it does not represent 'value'. It represents the ongoing financing that will be necessary if both the equity plus debt is bought by one person, who then pays himself a dividend with that free cash. So if you are Private Equity, this measures your net investment at t=0.5, not the price you pay at t=0. If you are a retail investor, who a) won't be buying the debt, b) won't have any control over things like tax jurisdictions, c) won't be receiving any cash dividend, etc etc .... the metric is pointless.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f502cc83389aeb904354d24d6772f1f4", "text": "\"Isn't this effectively saying that the market responds principally to itself, and not to either economic fundamentals, or the profitability of the underlying companies. If so, the market as a \"\"price discovery mechanism\"\" is broken, and investors would be wise to do their own research.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f8350a8bf315061834eaf6d94b4aff", "text": "I'm sorry for adding another answer @MatthewFlaschen but it is too long for a comment. It depends on the situation. Say you buy shares of the Apple Inc. and want to know what is the lost opportunity cost. You need to find out what other opportunities are. In other words what are the other possible types of investments you consider. For example in theory you could try to invest in any company from S&P 500, but is it really possible (I don’t mean investing directly in index) . Are you really capable of researching each company. So in your case you would consider only a few companies as alternative solutions. Also after different time period each choice may be your lost opportunity cost. To measure the risk you have to: In conclusion I want to say that my goal was to picture in general how the process looks. Also this is just an exemplary answer. All is about in what finance field you are interested. For example in one field you use Internal Rate of Return and in other Value at Risk. Opportunity cost is to vague to exactly tell how measure its risk of wrong anticipation. It connects in every finance field and in every field you have different ways do deal with it. If you specify your question more, maybe someone will provide a better answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0bdd5c15da146e171b10c5968e3c39a8", "text": "\"I'd agree with maybe a concept of \"\"situational value\"\" being negative while accepting \"\"intrinsic value\"\" means \"\"what use a person can expect to get out of it\"\", but again, both ultimately are subjective. That said, there can be benefits from drawing a distinction between the two. Going back to Bitcoin, it does have an \"\"intrinsic value\"\", because the value of Bitcoin itself is that it can be divided up easily, transferred easily, and etc, all the things that make a currency valuable. Traditionally, we value things as money if they meet many of the following criteria: 1. Medium of exchange 2. Unit of account 3. Store of value 4. Standard of deferred payment 5. Measure of Value Gold meets some of these better than others, dollars meet some of these better than others, and so on, but Bitcoin meets all of these very well, which means (at least to me) that Bitcoin has intrinsic value in that it meets the definition of what we value the most in a currency. So maybe as long as we agree that there is a difference between subjective value and intrinsic value, and agree that subjective value can, in fact, be negative, there may be something to go on here.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
adff53ef2b44af320d0f135806feef54	What should a 19 year old with a moderate inheritance look for in a financial advisor?	[ { "docid": "1c6a45d877ecaabc9e61daea790eaa50", "text": "\"I think your question is pretty wise, and the comments indicate that you understand the magnitude of the situation. First off, there could be nothing that your friend could do. Step parent relationships can be strained and this could make it worse, add the age of the girl and grief and he could make this a lot worse then it potentially is. She may spend it all to spite step-dad. Secondly, there is a need to understand by all involved that personal finance is about 75-90% behavior. Very high income people can wind up bankrupt, and lower income people can end up wealthy. The difference between two people's success or failure often boils down to behavior. Thirdly, I think you understand that there needs to be a \"\"why\"\", not only a \"\"what\"\" to do. I think that is the real tricky part. There has to be a teaching component along with an okay this is what you should do. Finding a person will be difficult. First off there is not a lot of money involved. Good financial advisers handle much larger cash positions and this young lady will probably need to spend some of it down. Secondly most FAs are willing to provide a cookie cutter solution to the problem at hand. This will likely leave a bad taste in the daughter's mouth. If it was me, I would encourage two things: Both of those things buy time. If she comes out of this with an education in a career field with a 50-60K starting salary, a nice used car, and no student loans that would be okay. I would venture to say mom would be happy. If she is very savvy, she might be able to come out of this with a down payment on a place of her own; or, if she has education all locked up perhaps purchasing a home for mostly cash. In the interim period a search for a good teaching FA could occur. Finding such a person could also help you and your friend in addition to the daughter. Now my own step-daughter and I have a good financial relationship. There are other areas where our relationship can be strained but as far as finances we relate well. We took Financial Peace University ($100 offered through many local churches) together when she was at the tender age of 16. The story of \"\"Ben and Arthur\"\" really spoke to her and we have had many subsequent conversations on the matter. That may work in this case. A youTube video on part of the lesson.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2234ad152a94b06edf2086f30592fe80", "text": "I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab74462d5c7f99d3a4afd1ef3aeba97d", "text": "It sounds like the job will largely be an administrative assistant (scheduling, note taking, organizing, etc.). If you want a primer on finance to try and show you want to understand more about what he does, then there's 4 fundamental ideas that underlie the majority of topics in finance: time value of money, liquidity preference, risk, and leverage. If someone has read and understands the investopedia intro paragraph on those topics; it's pretty easy to explain the gist of most aspects of finance to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89284f3984c1f9da4e87b7bcd0d6f026", "text": "\"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f8153afd212e6e5cd6cf20c42f96389", "text": "There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c9d55800920d12987fec8518dbba0a", "text": "\"That depends, really. Generally speaking, though - Roth IRAs are THE PLACE for Stock-Market/Mutual-Fund investing. All the off the wall (or, not so off the wall) things like Real Estate investments, or buying up gold, or whatever other ideas you hear from people - they may be good or bad or whatnot. But your Roth IRA is maybe not the best place for that sort of thing. The whole philosophy behind IRAs is to deliberately set aside money for the future. Anything reasonable will work for this. Explore interesting investment ideas with today's money, not tomorrow's money. That being said - at your age I would go for the riskier options within what's available. If I were in your situation (and I have been, recently), I would lean toward low-fee mutual funds classified as \"\"Growth\"\" funds. My own personal opinion (THIS IS NOT ADVICE) is that Small Cap International funds are the place to be for young folks. That's a generalized opinion based on my feel for the world, but I don't think I'm personally competent to start making specific stock picks. So, mutual funds makes sense to me in that I can select the fund that generally aligns with my sense of things, and assume that their managers will make reasonably sound decisions within that framework. Of course that assumption has to be backed up with reputation of the specific MF company and the comparative performance of the fund relative to other funds in the same sector. As to the generalized question (how else can you work toward financial stability and independence), outside of your Roth IRA: find ways to boost your earning potential over time, and buy a house before the next bubble (within the next 18 months, I'm GUESSING).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51b206d44f1bef451e8014f531ccc07c", "text": "Is my financial status OK? You have money for emergencies in the bank, you spend less than you earn. Yes, your status is okay. You will have a good standard of living if nothing changes from your status quo. How can I improve it? You are probably paying more in taxes than you would if you made a few changes. If you max out tax advantaged retirement accounts that would reduce the up-front taxes you are paying on your savings. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? The best time to see a financial advisor is any time that your situation changes. New job? Getting married? Having a child? Got a big promotion or raise? Suddenly thinking about buying a house? Is it worth the money? How would she/he help me? If you pick an advisor who has incentive to help you rather than just pad his/her own pockets with commissions, then the advice is usually worth the money. If there is someone whose time is already paid for, that may be better. For example, if you get an accountant to help you with your taxes and ask him/her how to best reduce your taxes the next year, the advice is already paid-for in the fee you for the tax help. An advisor should help you minimize the high taxes you are almost certainly paying as a single earner, and minimize the stealth taxes you are paying in inflation (on that $100k sitting in the bank).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c00e188521bb82ead41c19c72e51825", "text": "\"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4145833bd6b01dbe3f0e3a17317feb84", "text": "Be very careful to hold on tight to your money! I agree with paying for an investment advisor, but I would say use at least two to get different viewpoints, and get credentials and references! Don't let relatives convince you to invest in their business, or help them out, or any other such nonsense. Real estate still is one of the best investments out there in my opinion. You could buy a fixer upper and rent it out?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19db6fb40b0e627a0ddfc56aeb1268a1", "text": "\"I would be more than happy to find a good use for your money. ;-) Well, you have a bunch of money far in excess of your regular expenses. The standard things are usually: If you are very confused, it's probably worth spending some of your windfall to hire professional help. It beats you groping in the dark and possibly doing something stupid. But as you've seen, not all \"\"professionals\"\" are equal, and finding a good one is another can of worms. If you can find a good one, it's probably worth it. Even better would be for you to take the time and thoroughly educate yourself about investment (by reading books), and then make a knowledgeable decision. Being a casual investor (ie. not full time trader) you will likely arrive, like many do, at a portfolio that is mostly a mix of S&P ETFs and high grade (eg. govt and AAA corporate) bonds, with a small part (5% or so) in individual stock and other more complicated securities. A good financial advisor will likely recommend something similar (I've had good luck with the one at my credit union), and can guide you through the details and technicalities of it all. A word of caution: Since you remark about your car and house, be careful about upgrading your lifestyle. Business is good now and you can afford nicer things, but maybe next year it's not so good. What if you are by then too used to the high life to give it up, and end up under mountains of debt? Humans are naturally optimistic, but be wary of this tendency when making assumptions about what you will be able to afford in the future. That said, if you really have no idea, hey, take a nice vacation, get an art tutor for the kids, spend it (well, ideally not all of it) on something you won't regret. Investments are fickle, any asset can crash tomorrow and ruin your day. But often experiences are easier to judge, and less likely to lose value over time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c3222f7e7299fa077a176bf2df9e034", "text": "\"Excellent questions! Asking such questions indicates something special about yourself. The desire to learn and adjust your beliefs will increase your chance of success in your life. I would use a wide variety of authors to increase your education. Myself I prefer Dave Ramsey to Clark Howard, but I think Clark is very good. The first thing you should focus on is learning how to do and live by a budget. Often times, adults will assume that you are on a budget because you are broke. It happens with my friends and my youngest child is older than you. Nothing could be further from the truth. A budget is simply a plan on how you will spend your income so you don't run out of money before you run out of month. Along with budgeting I would also focus on goal setting. This is the type of \"\"investing\"\" you should be doing at your age. For example if your primary goal was to become an engineer, my recommendation is to hold off buying stocks/mutual funds and using your current income to get through school with little or no student loans. Another example might be to open your own HVAC business. Your best bet might be to learn the trade, working for someone else, and take night classes for business management. Most 18 year olds have very little earning power. Your focus at this point should be increasing your income and learning how to manage the income you have. Please keep in mind that most debt is bad. It robs you of your income which is your greatest wealth building tool. Car loans and credit card debt is just plain stupid. Often times a business case can be made for reasonable student loans. However, why not challenge yourself to take none. How much further ahead could you be if you graduate, with a degree, when your peers are strapped with a 40K loan? Keep up the good work and keep asking questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5c7f7d203e7382c51786e86d48f3934", "text": "Before you even enroll in a good financial school, register for an account with a bank that allows you to manage a stock portfolio. I prefer TD Ameritrade. You do have to be 18 (Just register it under your parents, it doesn't matter. Just make sure they fill out the information portion. Get the SSN and tax info right. Basically it's their account, you're just managing it. ) That way you'll have some good, practical experience going into it. Understand that working with money can be a very cut-throat industry, be ready to be competing with people constantly. Also, surround yourself with books from successful stock brokers, investment bankers, things like that. When you're working you'll want information like that. Good luck, and I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd2ff40e912f08c9192831e67f19e90d", "text": "Look through the related questions. Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year. Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls. Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds. Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many. jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger. He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares. I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early). Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit: Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most. Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be. If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d356e065a65de9c35e9d108e23d322f2", "text": "2 + 20 isn't really a investment style, more of a management style. As CTA I don't have specific experience in the Hedge Fund industry but they are similar. For tech stuff, you may want to check out Interactive Brokers. As for legal stuff, with a CTA you need to have power of attorney form, disclosure documents, risk documents, fees, performance, etc. You basically want to cover your butt and make sure clients understand everything. For regulatory compliance and rules, you would have to consult your apporiate regulatory body. For a CTA its the NFA/CFTC. You should look at getting licensed to provide crediabilty. For a CTA it would be the series 3 license at the very least and I can provide you with a resource for study guides and practice test taking for ALL licenses. I can provide a brief step by step guide later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a911181137582e6d96fe11409fd5e1b", "text": "First of all, I am sorry for your loss. At this time, worrying about money is probably the least of your concerns. It might be tempting to try to pay off all your debts at once, and while that would be satisfying, it would be a poor investment of your inheritance. When you have debt, you have to think about how much that debt is costing you to keep open. Since you have 0%APR on your student loan, it does not make sense to pay any more than the minimum payments. You may want to look into getting a personal loan to pay off your other personal debts. The interest rates for a loan will probably be much less than what you are paying currently. This will allow you to put a payment plan together that is affordable. You can also use your inheritance as collateral for the loan. Getting a loan will most likely give you a better credit rating as well. You may also be tempted to get a brand new sports car, but that would also not be a good idea at all. You should shop for a vehicle based on your current income, and not your savings. I believe you can get the same rates for an auto loan for a car up to 3 years old as a brand new car. It would be worth your while to shop for a quality used car from a reputable dealer. If it is a certified used car, you can usually carry the rest of the new car warranty. The biggest return on investment you have now is your employer sponsored 401(k) account. Find out how long it takes for you to become fully vested. Being vested means that you can leave your job and keep all of your employer contributions. If possible, max out, or at least contribute as much as you can afford to that fund to get employee matching. You should also stick with your job until you become fully vested. The money you have in retirement accounts does you no good when you are young. There is a significant penalty for early withdrawal, and that age is currently 59 1/2. Doing the math, it would be around 2052 when you would be able to have access to that money. You should hold onto a certain amount of your money and keep it in a higher interest rate savings account, or a money market account. You say that your living situation will change in the next year as well. Take full advantage of living as cheaply as you can. Don't make any unnecessary purchases, try to brown bag it to lunch instead of eating out, etc. Save as much as you can and put it into a savings account. You can use that money to put a down payment on a house, or for the security and first month's rent. Try not to spend any money from your savings, and try to support yourself as best as you can from your income. Make a budget for yourself and figure out how much you can spend every month. Don't factor in your savings into it. Your savings should be treated as an emergency fund. Since you have just completed school, and this is your first big job out of college, your income will most likely improve with time. It might make sense to job hop a few times to find the right position. You are much more likely to get a higher salary by changing jobs and employers than you are staying in the same one for your entire career. This generally is true, even if you are promoted at the by the same employer. If you do leave your current job, you would lose what your employer contributed if you are not vested. Even if that happened, you would still keep the portion that you contributed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d74a187ce9d827a308f17fa8561d36", "text": "okay, I was thinking of an investment advisor. I believe in not doing it alone too. But i don't believe in just one more person. Investing advisors, tax advisors, business and law. I don't go to an advisor bc I can't balance my monthly budget and also want to save, you know. Questions more like, highest growth sectors, diversified strategies, etc. And right, they wouldn't get fired bc their client is still happy, (even though their losing money during a record bull market). Guy must be a good sales man. I'd just want to know that my advisors performance is decent relative to the market. But again, I'm not handing over checks to people, only speaking with them. edit: Yes, the average person should worry about making their kids soccer games and shit, not necessarily the markets and what their investment is worth in 30yrs", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
81f319a22679afe2577aa7a9d3d794dd	A little advice please…car loan related	[ { "docid": "58e95a431a54882c2dd8e7b9524e93b1", "text": "\"Let's assess the situation first, then look at an option: This leaves you with about $1,017/mo in cash flow, provided you spend money on nothing else (entertainment, oil changes, general merchandise, gifts, etc.) So I'd say take $200/mo off that as \"\"backup\"\" money. Now we're at $817/mo. Question: What have you been doing with this extra $800/mo? If you put $600/mo of that extra towards the 10% loan, it would be paid off in 12 months and you would only pay $508 in interest. If you have been saving it (like all the wisest people say you should), then you should have plenty enough to either pay for a new transmission or buy a \"\"good enough\"\" car outright. 10% interest rate on a vehicle purchase is not very good. Not sure why you have a personal loan to handle this rather than an auto loan, but I'll guess you have a low credit score or not much credit history. Cost of a new transmission is usually $1,700 - $3,500. Not sure what vehicle we're talking about, so let's make it $3,000 to be conservative. At your current interest rate, you'll have paid another $1,450 in interest over the next 33 months just trying to pay off your underwater car. If you take your old car to a dealership and trade it in towards a \"\"new to you\"\" car, you might be able to roll your existing loan into a new loan. Now, I'm not sure when you say personal loan if you mean an official loan from a bank or a personal loan from a friend/family-member, so that could make a difference. I'm also not sure if a dealership will be willing to recognize a personal loan in the transaction as I'd wager there's no lien against the vehicle for them to worry about. But, if you can manage it, you may be able to get a lower overall interest rate. If you can't roll it into a new financing plan, then you need to assess if you can afford a new loan (provided you even get approved) on top of your existing finances. One big issue that will affect interest rates and approvals will be your down payment amount. The higher it is, the better interest rate you'll receive. Ultimately, you're in a not-so-great position, but if your monthly budget is as you describe, then you'll be fine after a few more years. The perils of buying a used car is that you never know what might happen. What if you don't repair your existing car, buy another car, and it breaks down in a year? It's all a bit of a gamble. Don't let your emotions get in the way of making a decision. You might be frustrated with your current vehicle, but if $3,000 of repairs makes it last 3 more years, (by which time your current loan should be paid off), then you'll be in a much better spot to finance a newer vehicle. Of course it would be much better to save up cash over that time and buy something outright, but that's not always feasible. Would you rather fix up your current car and keep working to pay down the debt, or, would you rather be rid of the car and put $3,000 down on a \"\"new to you\"\" car and take on an additional monthly debt? There's no single right answer for you. First and foremost you need to assess your monthly cash flow and properly allocate the extra funds. Get out of debt as soon as reasonably possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1259d4d740cf27053cb763d58171860c", "text": "\"Suggested way to make the decision to repair or buy: Figure out what it will cost to repair your car. (If necessary, pay a garage to evaluate it \"\"as if your daughter was interested in buying it\"\".) Then think about whether you would pay that much to buy a car just like yours but without those problems. If the answer is yes, fixing it us probably your most cost-effective choice, even if it is a big bill. If the answer is no, consider a used car, and again have the mechanic check it for any lurking horrors before committing to buy it. That avoids the \"\"proprty-line tax\"\" where a new car loses a significant percentage of its value the moment it leaves the dealership. An almost-toy car us virtually indistinguishable from a new car, costs much less, and realistically has about the same expected life span. I bought a new car once -- at about $300 over the dealer's real (as opposed to sticker) cost, since I was willing to take the one he was stuck with from the previous model year. (Thank you, Consumer Reports, for providing the dealer's cost info and making this a five-minute transaction.) If it hadn't suffered flood damage I'd probably still be driving it, and even so I sorta regret not pricing what it would have cost go completely replace the engine. If you really plan to drive it until it is completely unrepairable, you may be able to justify a new car... But realistically buying a one- or two-year-old car would have been a better choice.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "47f824d42ed7ff0928853fa65f72d426", "text": "\"I am not sure how anyone is answering this unless they know what the loan was for. For instance if it is for a house you can put a lien on the house. If it is for the car in most states you can take over ownership of it. Point being is that you need to go after the asset. If there is no asset you need to go after you \"\"friend\"\". Again we need more specifics to determine the best course of action which could range from you suing and garnishing wages from your friend to going to small claims court. Part of this process is also getting a hold of the lending institution. By letting them know what is going on they may be able to help you - they are good at tracking people down for free. Also the lender may be able to give you options. For example if it is for a car a bank may help you clear this out if you get the car back plus penalty. If a car is not in the red on the loan and it is in good condition the bank turns a profit on the default. If they can recover it for free they will be willing to work with you. I worked in repo when younger and on more than a few occasions we had the cosigner helping. It went down like this... Co-signer gets pissed like you and calls bank, bank works out a plan and tells cosigner to default, cosigner defaults, banks gives cosigner rights to repo vehicle, cosigner helps or actually repos vehicle, bank gets car back, bank inspects car, bank asks cosigner for X amount (sometimes nothing but not usually), cosigner pays X, bank does not hit cosigners credit, bank releases loan and sells car. I am writing this like it is easy but it really requires that asset is still in good condition, that cosigner can get to the asset, and that the \"\"friend\"\" still is around and trusts cosigner. I have seen more than a few cosigners promise to deliver and come up short and couple conspiring with the \"\"friend\"\". I basically think most of the advice you have gotten so far is crap and you haven't provided enough info to give perfect advice. Seeking a lawyer is a joke. Going after a fleeing party could eat up 40-50 billable hours. It isn't like you are suing a business or something. The lawyer could cost as much as repaying the loan - and most lawyers will act like it is a snap of their fingers until they have bled you dry - just really unsound advice. For the most part I would suggest talking to the bank and defaulting but again need 100% of the details. The other part is cosigning the loan. Why the hell would you cosign a loan for a friend? Most parents won't cosign a loan for their own kids. And if you are cosigning a loan, you write up a simple contract and make the non-payment penalties extremely costly for your friend. I have seen simple contracts that include 30% interests rates that were upheld by courts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ea3b8af7a6b041764f60802ed30c0f8", "text": "Is it really worth the interest you'd pay over a year for a relatively minor and temporary bump to your credit score? I mean, you just bought a car so I'm assuming you probably aren't looking for another loan in the near future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1622d00b8e5930ff7cf8b02cd26ee96", "text": "the best thing to do is file bankrupt. your credit will be shot for 7 to 10 years. however usually 3 years after the bankrupt people will give you small lines of credit. then you rebuild on the small credit lines. and never get into a bad loan again you learn from mistakes. there is no shame in a mistake if you learned from it. I rebuilt my credit by using fingerhut. small credit limit on a cap 1 credit card 300 dollars unsecured card. personal loan of 1500 dollars to buy a old clunk for a car as I did not want to have five years of car payments. you can also get a secured credit card. and build credit with that. the bank will explain how to build credit using your own money. also you should know a lot of banks like your bankrupt stat. because they no you cant file for several more years. meaning if you don't pay your loan they can garnish you and you cant file bankrupt. you can get a new car loan with good interest rate. by taking 5000 dollars of your 15000 dollars savings down on the new loan. making your new car loan have better payments cheaper and better interest. and get a secured credit card of 2000 to build towards a unsecured credit card. keep all your new credit tabs small and pay on time.i would not use all your nest egg savings. that is not smart. get a lawyer and file. stay in school you will have a fresh start and you learned about upside down loans. don't listen to people trying to tell you bankruptsy is bad. it in a lot of ways gives you the upper hand in a no win debt or debts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "996646b3a3c87bc269fd93c685c9e848", "text": "You can earn significantly more than 0.99% in the stock market. I'd pay the $450/month and invest the rest in a (relatively conservative) stock market fund, making monthly withdrawals for the car note.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e50b5bb1e442c035db4970ad52e0f7bb", "text": "Yes, but then either of you will need the other's permission to sell the car. I strongly recommend you get an agreement on that point, in writing, and possibly reviewed by a lawyer, before entering into this kind of relationship. (See past discussions of car titles and loan cosigners for some examples of how and why this can go wrong.) When doung business with friends, treating it as a serious business transaction is the best way to avoid ruining the friendship.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76384f87eaa0952d8425ce9d84c3dd45", "text": "\"You have figured out most of the answers for yourself and there is not much more that can be said. From a lender's viewpoint, non-immigrant students applying for car loans are not very good risks because they are going to graduate in a short time (maybe less than the loan duration which is typically three years or more) and thus may well be leaving the country before the loan is fully paid off. In your case, the issue is exacerbated by the fact that your OPT status is due to expire in about one year's time. So the issue is not whether you are a citizen, but whether the lender can be reasonably sure that you will be gainfully employed and able to make the loan payments until the loan is fully paid off. Yes, lenders care about work history and credt scores but they also care (perhaps even care more) about the prospects for steady employment and ability to make the payments until the loan is paid off. Yes, you plan on applying for a H1-B visa but that is still in the future and whether the visa status will be adjusted is still a matter with uncertain outcome. Also, these are not matters that can be explained easily in an on-line application, or in a paper application submitted by mail to a distant bank whose name you obtained from some list of \"\"lenders who have a reliable track record of extending auto loans to non-permanent residents.\"\" For this reason, I suggested in a comment that you consider applying at a credit union, especially if there is an Employees' Credit Union for those working for your employer. If you go this route, go talk to a loan officer in person rather than trying to do this on the phone. Similarly, a local bank,and especially one where you currently have an account (hopefully in good standing), is more likely to be willing to work with you. Failing all this, there is always the auto dealer's own loan offers of financing. Finally, one possibility that you might want to consider is whether a one-year lease might work for you instead of an outright purchase, and you can buy a car after your visa issue has been settled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be13fa59cf116fba48f6e48a8d156b8", "text": "\"First off learn from this: Never cosign again. There are plenty of other \"\"tales of woe\"\" outlined on this site that started and ended similarly. Secondly do what you can to get off of the loan. First I'd go back to her dad and offer him $1000 to take you off the loan and sign over the car. Maybe go up to $3000 if you have that much cash. If that doesn't work go to the bank and offer them half of the loan balance to take you off. You can sign a personal loan for that amount (maybe). Whatever it takes to get off the loan. If she has a new BF offer him the same deal as the dad. Why do you have to do this? Because you owned an asset that was once valued at 13K and is valued at (probably) less than 4K. Given that you have a loan on it the leverage works against you causing you to lose more money. The goal now is to cut your losses and learn from your mistakes. I feel like the goal of your post was to make your ex-gf look bad. It's more important to do some self examination. If she was such a bad person why did you date her? Why did you enter a business transaction with her? I'd recommend seeking counseling on why you make such poor choices and to help you avoid them in the future. Along these lines I'd also examine your goals in life. If your desire is to be a wealthy person, then why would you borrow money to buy a car? Seek to imitate rich people to become rich. Picking the right friends and mates is an important part of this. If you do not have a desire to be a wealthy person what does it matter? Losing 13K over seven months is a small step in the \"\"right\"\" direction.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1f1aa4fd1d65fa135ec33d4155d334c", "text": "\"You are correct to be wary. Car dealerships make money selling cars, and use many tactics and advertisements to entice you to come into their showroom. \"\"We are in desperate need of [insert your make, model, year and color]! We have several people who want that exact car you have! Come in and sell it to us and buy a new car at a great price! We'll give you so much money on your trade in!\"\" In reality, they play a shell game and have you focus on your monthly payment. By extending the loan to 4 or 5 years (or longer), they can make your monthly payment lower, sure, but the total amount paid is much higher. You're right: it's not in your best interest. Buy a car and drive it into the ground. Being free of car payments is a luxury!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3796ebab3370b9916c28dc5d95cf556", "text": "An option that no one has yet suggested is selling the car, paying off the loan in one lump sum (adding cash from your emergency sum, if need be), and buying an old beater in its place. With the beater you should be able to get a few years out of it - hopefully enough to get you through your PhD and into a better income situation where you can then assess a new car purchase (or more gently-used car purchase, to avoid the drive-it-off-the-lot income loss). Even better than buying another car that you can afford to pay for is if you can survive without that car, depending on your location and public transit options. Living car free saves you not only this payment but gas and maintenance, though it costs you in public transit terms. Right now it looks as if this debt is hurting you more than the amount in your emergency fund is helping. Don't wipe out your emergency fund completely, but be willing to lower it in order to wipe out this debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a19a12381407a53ef09ec1a7fdea9e04", "text": "I'd pay cash. Car loans are amortized, so sometimes you can get upside-down on the loan between 18-30 months because you are pre-paying interest. This can get you into trouble if you get into an accident. Given the low rate and the type of car you're buying, you're probably fine either way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9f4054961c225c6fdbe00d297ba5b9a", "text": "As well as paying 8% interest on your loan (i.e. $800/year), you're also wasting money on the car: depreciation, insurance etc. So it's worth a lot to you to get out of it. Set against that is the risk of having to borrow the $3000 you'll be taking from your emergency fund at a higher interest rate (say 30%?) for at most 6 months, which would only cost you $300-$400 even if it happens. You'll also be giving up a small amount of interest on the $3000, but at current interest rates that pretty much negligible. There is a small chance that an emergency would also cause the available credit on your credit cards to disappear, but in the short term that should be pretty unlikely. So I think the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of getting out of the loan as soon as you can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "170f30bfa452e1d4d4dc1b3e35bba2df", "text": "\"I'm sorry you are going through this, but what you are dealing with is exactly is how cosigning works. It is among other reasons why you should never cosign a loan for someone unless you are 100% prepared to pay the loan on their behalf. Unfortunately, the main \"\"benefit\"\" to cosigning a loan is to the bank - they don't care who makes payments, only that someone does. It is not in their interest to educate purchasers who can easily get themselves into the situation you are in. What your options are depends a fair bit on the type of loan it is. The biggest problem is that normally as cosigner you cannot force your friend to do anything. If it is for a car, your best bet is to convince them to sell the car and hopefully recoup more than the cost of the loan. Many workplaces have some sort of free service to provide counseling/guidance on this sort of thing. Look into your employee benefits as you may have some free services there. You can sue your friend in small claims court, but keep in mind: It also depends on how big the loan is relative to your income. While it might feel good to sue your friend in small claims court, if it's for $500 it probably isn't worthwhile - but if your friend just stopped paying off their $30k vehicle assuming you will pay for it, even though they can pay for it themselves?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40866fb8a8243cc76e2a790a33cab482", "text": "Some aspects of your general financial lifestyle make a big difference in your score. Always pay late; declare bankruptcy; have bills go to collection, these will hurt your overall score. Some aspects of your life start with a low score and rise over time: the number of years you have had credit. Some only have short term and transient impacts: what is your utilization rate today; when was your last hard pull. Any agonizing you do over the transient aspects during a period of time when your score doesn't matter, is a waste of energy. If you are looking for a new mortgage, or a another type of loan, then act in a way that will improve your score. But If you see no immediate need then don't sweat the details. If your credit limit is too low for your lifestyle, then ask for it to be increased. Just don't ask for the increase a few days before you put in the auto loan application.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b33653164a3081cba70f7d0a1fb18f8", "text": "The key here is the bank, they hold the title to the car and as such have the final say in things. The best thing you can do is to pay off the loan. Could you work like crazy and pay off the car in 6 months to a year? The next best thing would be to sell the car. You will probably have to cover the depreciation out of pocket. You will also need to have some cash to buy a different car, but buy it for cash like you should have done in the first place. The worst option and what most people opt for, which is why they are broke, is to seek to refinance the car. I am not sure why you would have to wait 6 months to a year to refinance, but unless you have truly horrific credit, a local bank or credit union will be happy for your business. Choose this option if you want to continue to be broke for the next five years or so. Once any of those happen it will be easy to re-title the car in your name only provided you are on good terms with the girlfriend. It is just a matter of going to the local title office and her signing over her interest in the car. My hope is that you understand the series of foolish decisions that you made in this vehicle purchase and avoid them in the future. Or, at the very least, you consciously make the decision to appear wealthy rather than actually being wealthy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0609f66030464ce8977f64934cb2684a", "text": "I am 17 and currently have a loan out for a car. My parents also have terrible credit, and because I knew this I was able to get around it. Your co-signer on your loan does not have to be your parent, at least in Wisconsin, I used my grandmother, who has excellent credit, as my cosigner. With my loan, we had made it so it doesn't hurt her credit if I don't get my payments in on time, maybe this is something for you to look into.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9c877dec01775a710c47d22667cfbf64	Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing	[ { "docid": "0baa5a3c7ea69b3083e0f3e3e37d1e5e", "text": "I am a firm believer in the idea of limiting debt as much as possible. I would not recommend borrowing money for anything other than a reasonably sized mortgage. As a result, my recommendations are going to be geared toward that goal. The top priorities for me, then, would be to make sure, first, that we don't have to go further into debt, and second, that we eliminate the debt that we already have as soon as possible. Here is how I would rate your list: A small emergency fund, perhaps $1000 USD, is going to ensure that, while you are funding other things, you don't end up so cash poor that, if something unexpected and urgent comes up, you are forced to add to your credit card debt. Make this small fund your top priority, and it shouldn't take much more than a month or two to do it. Getting out of debt is important, but if your employer hands out free money, you have to take it. It is just too good of a deal. Get rid of this debt as fast as possible. When you are done, you'll have more income available to you than you've ever had before. Now that you have just gotten done eliminating your debt as fast as possible, don't stop there. Take the income you had been throwing at your debt, and build up your emergency fund to a few months' worth of your expenses. Finishing this fund up will enable you to withstand a small crisis without borrowing anything. You are now in a very strong position financially, and can confidently invest. Deciding which type of retirement account is best for you depends on the details of your situation. Once you are contributing a healthy amount to your retirement funds, you may want to consider paying off your mortgage early. As I said before, I recommend getting down to the last step as quickly as possible. Depending on how much debt you actually have, if you sacrifice for a year or two you could be debt free and in a position to keep all of your investment gains. If you take your time paying off debt, like many people do, you could find yourself 10 years from now still making payments on your loans, still making car payments, and still needlessly sending interest to the banks, eating away at the gains you are making in your investments. If you aren't committed to eliminating your debt quickly, and plan on having payments for a long time, then skip this advice and put retirement savings at the top.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e7ceeaf5fcf46a657a8e4ae1a79cb77", "text": "\"One can generalize on Traditional vs Roth flavors of accounts, I suggest Roth for 15% money and going pretax to avoid 25% tax. If the student loan is much over 4%, it may make sense to put it right after emergency fund. For emergency fund priority - I'm assuming EF really requires 2 phases, the $2500 broken transmission/root canal bill, and the lose your job, or need a new roof level bills. I'm in favor of doing what let's you sleep well. I'm also quick to point out that if you owe $2500 at 18%, yet have $2500 in your emergency fund, you're really throwing away $450 in interest each year. There's an ongoing debate of \"\"credit card as emergency fund.\"\" No, I don't claim that your cards should be considered an emergency fund, per se, but I would prioritize knocking off the 18% debt as a high priority. Once that crazy interest debt is gone, fund the ER, and find a balance for savings and the next level ER, the 6-9mo of expenses one. One can choose to fund a Roth IRA, but keep the asset out of retirement calculations. It's simply an emergency account returning tax free interest, and if never used, it eventually is retirement money. A Roth permits withdrawal of deposited funds with no tax or penalty, just tracking it each year. This actually rubs some people the wrong way as it sounds like tapping your retirement account for emergencies. For my purpose, it's a tax free emergency fund. Not retirement, unless and until you are saving so much in the 401(k) you need more tax favored retirement money. I wrote an article some time ago, the Roth Emergency Fund which went into a bit more detail. Last - keep in mind, this is my opinion. I can intelligently argue my case, but at some point, it's up to the individual to do what feels right. Paying 18% debt off a bit slower, say 4 years instead of 3, in favor of funding the matched 401(k), to me, you run the numbers, watch the 401(k) balance grow by 2X your pretax deposits, and see that in year 3, your retirement account is jump-started and far, far more than your remaining 18% cards. Those who feel the opposite and wish to be debt free first are going to do what they want. And the truth is, if this lets you sleep better at night, I'm in favor of it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a53ab27dfe576d690305c62bcc688384", "text": "Organize your expenses in order of the rate of return, and pay them in that order. By far the highest rate of return on your list is: Nowhere else are you going to see an immediate 100% return (or 50%, depending on the company's matching policy) on every dollar you allocate to this pot. Second would probably be: Money that you do not allocate here will usually incur a 15%-29% penalty. Outside of large expenses like a home, education, or a reasonable car, you never want to pay to use your own money (and borrowed money is still yours, remember that someday you have to pay all of it back). Avoiding a negative rate of return (interest) can be just as beneficial as finding a high positive rate of return on an investment. Continue down the list determining what must be paid first, and what the highest rates are in the immediate future and the long run. Meanwhile, live within your means, and set aside a portion of your monthly income towards things like a rainy day fund (up to a level which is not touched when reached). Additional savings through work or your personal investments should not be neglected (money saved early and compounded is worth many times what a dollar saved down the road will gain) especially if you are young in your career.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8903fcb9641a6b805c349a10d960a665", "text": "\"Money is a tool. Here is an \"\"oversimplified\"\" order of investments:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ca5a07dbc9252168d91b1abc00a1885", "text": "Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce8d6d5b04f5a41cc1c92d8503bc7181", "text": "\"All of the provided advice is great, but a slightly different viewpoint on debt is worth mentioning. Here are the areas that you should concentrate your efforts and the (rough) order you should proceed. Much of the following is predicated upon your having a situation where you need to get out of debt, and learn to better budget and control your spending. You may already have accomplished some of these steps, or you may prioritize differently. Many people advise prioritizing contributing to a 401(k) savings plan. But with the assumption that you need advise because you have debt trouble, you are probably paying absurd interest rates, and any savings you might have will be earning much lower rates than you are paying on consumer debt. If you are already contributing, continue the plan. But remember, you are looking for advice because your financial situation is in trouble, so you need to put out the fire (your present problem), and learn how to manage your money and plan for the future. Compose a budget, comprised of the following three areas (the exact percentages are fungible, fit them to your circumstances). Here is where planning can get fun, when you have freed yourself from debt, and you can make choices that resonate with your individual goals. Once you have \"\"put out the fire\"\" of debt, then you should do two things at the same time. As you pay off debt (and avoid further debt), you will find that saving for both independence and retirement become easier. The average American household may have $8000+ credit card debt, and at 20-30%, the interest payments are $150-200/month, and the average car payment is nearly $500/month. Eliminate debt and you will have $500-800/month that you can comfortably allocate towards retirement. But you also need to learn (educate yourself) how to invest your money to grow your money, and earn income from your savings. This is an area where many struggle, because we are taught to save, but we are not taught how to invest, choose investments wisely and carefully, and how to decide our goals. Investing needs to be addressed separately, but you need to learn how. Live in an affordable house, and pay off your mortgage. Consider that the payment on a mortgage on even a modest $200K house is over $1000/month. Combine saving the money you would have paid towards a mortgage payment with the money you would have paid towards credit card debt or a car loan. Saving becomes easy when you are freed from these large debts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00484e8e9c8d6d544eb2c3b16a4e22a2", "text": "It isn't always clear cut that you should pay off a debt at all, particularly a mortgage. In simple terms, if you are making a better return than what the bank is charging you, and the investment meets your risk criteria, then you should not pay back the debt. In the UK for example, mortgage rates are currently quite low. Around 2.5 - 3% is typical at the moment. On the other hand, you might reasonably expect a long run average return of around 9 - 11% on property (3 - 5% rental yield, and the rest on capital gains). To make the decision properly you need take into account the following:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7977d3c2f03fdc9ffd7ec7b2853de952", "text": "I would also consider unnecessarily complex investment strategies a big warning sign as they can easily hide poor investment advice or a bad strategy. This is especially the case when it comes to retail investment as complex strategies can have so many moving parts that you, as someone with a day job, can't spend enough time on it to keep an eye on everything and you only spot issues when it's too late. Other bugbears:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5084ed0ccf9ff17551785a1c05ce511", "text": "\"TL;DR: Sure, \"\"do your own homework\"\" is sometimes a cop out. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our homework. I agree that in many cases this is a cop-out by commentators. However, even if you believe in perfect market efficiency, there is benefit in \"\"doing your homework\"\" for many reasons. One of which you already mention in the question: different stocks all with the same \"\"value\"\" might have widely ranging risk. Another factor that might vary between stocks is their tax consequences. High dividend stocks might be a better fit for some buyers than others. One stock might be priced at $40 because there is a small chance they might get regulatory approval for a new product. This might make this stock very risky with a 20% of being $150 in 12 months, and a 80% chance of being $20. Another stock might be priced at $40 because the company is a cash cow, declining in revenues but producing a large dividend of $0.40 per quarter. Low risk, but also with some potential tax disadvantages. Another stock might be priced at $40 because it's a high growth stock. This would be less risky than the first example, but more risky than the second example. And the risk would be more generalized, i.e. there wouldn't be one day or one event that would be make or break the stock. In short, even if we assume that the market is pricing everything perfectly, not all stocks are equal and not all stocks are equally appropriate to everyone. Sometimes when we hear an analyst say \"\"they should have done their homework\"\" they are really saying \"\"This was a high risk/high reward stock. They should have known that this had a potential downside.\"\" And that all assumes that we believe in 100% pure market efficiency. Which many disagree with, at least to some extent. For example, if we instead subscribe to Peter Lynch's theories about \"\"local knowledge\"\", we might believe that everyone has some personal fields of expertise where they know more than the experts. A professional stock analyst is going to follow many stocks and many not have technical experience in the field of the company. (This is especially true of small and mid cap stocks.) If you happen to be an expert in LED lighting, it is entirely feasible (at least to me) that you could be able to do a better job of \"\"doing homework\"\" on CREE than the analysts. Or if you use a specialized piece of software from a small vendor at work, and you know that the latest version stinks, then you will likely know more than the analyst does. I think it is somewhat akin to going to a doctor. We could say to ourselves \"\"the doctor is more knowledgeable about me than medicine, I'm just going to do what they tell me to do.\"\" And 99% of the time, that is the right thing to do. But if we do our \"\"homework\"\" anyway, and research the symptoms, diagnoses, and drugs ourselves as well, we can do get benefits. Sometimes we just can express our preferences amongst equal solutions. Sometimes we can ask smarter questions. And sometimes we have some piece of knowledge that the doctor doesn't have and can actually make an important discovery they didn't know. (And, just like investing, sometimes we can also have just enough knowledge to be dangerous and do ourselves harm if we go against the advice of the professionals.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a40781c6cc6216df49c39206af5610c", "text": "\"Thanks for the info, things are starting to make more sense now. For some reason I've always neglected learning about investments, now that Im in a position to invest (and am still fairly young) I'm motivated to start learning. As for help with TD Ameritrade, I was looking into Index Funds (as another commenter mentioned that I should) on their site and am a little overwhelmed with the options. First, I'm looking at Mutual Funds, going to symbol lookup and using type = \"\"indeces\"\". I'm assuming that's the same thing as an \"\"Index Fund\"\" but since the language is slightly different I'm not 100% sure. However, at that point I need some kind of search for a symbol in order to see any results (makes sense, but I dont know where to start looking for \"\"good\"\" index funds). So my first question is: If I FIND a good mutual fund, is it correct to simply go to \"\"Buy Mutual Funds\"\" and find it from there? and if so, my second question is: How do I find a good mutual fund? My goal is to have my money in something that will likely grow faster than a savings account. I don't mind a little volatility, I can afford to lose my investment, I'd plan on leaving my money in the fund for a several years at least. My last question is: When investing in these types of funds (or please point me in another direction if you think Index Funds aren't the place for me to start) should I be reinvesting in the funds, or having them pay out dividends? I would assume that reinvesting is the smart choice, but I can imagine situations that might change that in order to mitigate risk...and as I've said a few times in this thread including the title, I'm a complete amateur so my assumptions aren't necessarily worth that much. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate all the info so far.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f45d01927c79b6f74f74be100f036a2", "text": "Instead of buying in bulk, I invest the money in equity mutual funds, for an expected return of 12%, which is more than inflation. So, I make more returns. But at the cost of a slight risk, which I'm comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "699cc6e9542068712bf23b3cc1e56b16", "text": "\"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd096c812c0ad78c3fd458f3ed8988e", "text": "In fact markets are not efficient and participants are not rational. That is why we have booms and busts in markets. Emotions and psychology play a role when investors and/or traders make decisions, sometimes causing them to behave in unpredictable or irrational ways. That is why stocks can be undervalued or overvalued compared to their true value. Also, different market participants may put a different true value on a stock (depending on their methods of analysis and the information they use to base their analysis on). This is why there are always many opportunities to profit (or lose your money) in liquid markets. Doing your research, homework, or analysis can be related to fundamental analysis, technical analysis, or a combination of the two. For example, you could use fundamental analysis to determine what to buy and then use technical analysis to determine when to buy. To me, doing your homework means to get yourself educated, to have a plan, to do your analysis (both FA and TA), to invest or trade according to your plan and to have a risk management strategy in place. Most people are too lazy to do their homework so will pay someone else to do it for them or they will just speculate (on the latest hot tip) and lose most of their money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96802f64aee75a2dff0c7b4c113c4323", "text": "John Bogle never said only buy the S&P 500 or any single index Q:Do you think the average person could safely invest for retirement and other goals without expert advice -- just by indexing? A: Yes, there is a rule of thumb I add to that. You should start out heavily invested in equities. Hold some bond index funds as well as stock index funds. By the time you get closer to retirement or into your retirement, you should have a significant position in bond index funds as well as stock index funds. As we get older, we have less time to recoup. We have more money to protect and our nervousness increases with age. We get a little bit worried about that nest egg when it's large and we have little time to recoup it, so we pay too much attention to the fluctuations in the market, which in the long run mean nothing. How much to pay Q: What's the highest expense ratio that one should pay for a domestic equity fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent maybe. Q: For an international fund? A: I'd say three-quarters of 1 percent. Q: For a bond fund? A: One-half of 1 percent. But I'd shave that a little bit. For example, if you can buy a no-load bond fund or a no-load stock fund, you can afford a little more expense ratio, because you're not paying any commission. You've eliminated cost No. 2....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1276e1f81743f47e0912964e2eba3635", "text": "\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bf25fbe8c8183d101281c3efbe087c4", "text": "You have to understand what risk is and how much risk you want to take on, and weight your portfolio accordingly. I think your 80/20 split based on wrong assumptions is the wrong way to look at it. It sounds like your risk appetite has changed. Risk is deviation from expected, so risk is not bad, and you can have cases where everyone would prefer the riskier asset. If you think the roulette table is too risky, instead of betting $1, stick 50c in your pocket and you changed the payoffs from $2 or 0 to 50c or $1.50 If your risk appetite has changed - change your risk exposure. If not, then all you are saying is I bought the wrong stuff earlier, now I should get out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66b416b5a7b2262ada678903c3bbc1af", "text": "First The Intelligent Investor and then the 1962 edition Security Analysis - which is out of print, you can get it on Amazon.com used or ebay. Then you can read the edition backward but the 1962 edition is the best - IMHO. And don't forget The Rediscovered Benjamin Graham and Benjamin Graham on Value Investing by Jane Lowe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76c6225dc5f0d9e48a5430310a5a8e41", "text": "This is only a rule of thumb. Peter Lynch popularized it; the ratio PE/growth is often called the Lynch Ratio. At best it's a very rough guideline. I could fill up this page with other caveats. I'm not saying that it's wrong, only that it's grossly incomplete. For a 10 second eyeball valuation of growth stocks, it's fine. But that's the extent of its usefulness.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527", "text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf1d1ea0e3677666ea9f6e49220977f5", "text": "\"RED FLAG. You should not be invested in 1 share. You should buy a diversified ETF which can have fees of 0.06% per year. This has SIGNIFICANTLY less volatility for the same statistical expectation. Left tail risk is MUCH lower (probability of gigantic losses) since losses will tend to cancel out gains in diversified portfolios. Moreover, your view that \"\"you believe these will continue\"\" is fallacious. Stocks of developed countries are efficient to the extent that retail investors cannot predict price evolution in the future. Countless academic studies show that individual investors forecast in the incorrect direction on average. I would be quite right to objectively classify you as a incorrect if you continued to hold the philosophy that owning 1 stock instead of the entire market is a superior stategy. ALL the evidence favours holding the market. In addition, do not invest in active managers. Academic evidence demonstrates that they perform worse than holding a passive market-tracking portfolio after fees, and on average (and plz don't try to select managers that you think can outperform -- you can't do this, even the best in the field can't do this). Direct answer: It depends on your investment horizon. If you do not need the money until you are 60 then you should invest in very aggressive assets with high expected return and high volatility. These assets SHOULD mainly be stocks (through ETFs or mutual funds) but could also include US-REIT or global-REIT ETFs, private equity and a handful of other asset classes (no gold, please.) ... or perhaps wealth management products which pool many retail investors' funds together and create a diversified portfolio (but I'm unconvinced that their fees are worth the added diversification). If you need the money in 2-3 years time then you should invest in safe assets -- fixed income and term deposits. Why is investment horizon so important? If you are holding to 60 years old then it doesn't matter if we have a massive financial crisis in 5 years time, since the stock market will rebound (unless it's a nuclear bomb in New York or something) and by the time you are 60 you will be laughing all the way to the bank. Gains on risky assets overtake losses in the long run such that over a 20-30 year horizon they WILL do much better than a deposit account. As you approach 45-50, you should slowly reduce your allocation to risky assets and put it in safe haven assets such as fixed income and cash. This is because your investment horizon is now SHORTER so you need a less risky portfolio so you don't have to keep working until 65/70 if the market tanks just before retirement. VERY IMPORTANT. If you may need the savings to avoid defaulting on your home loan if you lose your job or something, then the above does not apply. Decisions in these context are more vague and ambiguous.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fce3ae5e1905a229985d4408016bf3", "text": "\"It includes whatever you want to do with your investment. At least initially, it's not so much a matter of calculating numbers as of introspective soul-searching. Identifying your investment objectives means asking yourself, \"\"Why do I want to invest?\"\" Then you gradually ask yourself more and more specific questions to narrow down your goals. (For instance, if your answer is something very general like \"\"To make money\"\", then you may start to ask yourself, \"\"How much money do I want?\"\", \"\"What will I want to use that money for?\"\", \"\"When will I want to use that money?\"\", etc.) Of course, not all objectives are realistic, so identifying objectives can also involve whittling down plans that are too grandiose. One thing that can be helpful is to first identify your financial objectives: that is, money you want to be able to have, and things you want to do with that money. Investment (in the sense of purchasing investment vehicles likes stocks or bonds) is only one way of achieving financial goals; other ways include working for a paycheck, starting your own business, etc. Once you identify your financial goals, you have a number of options for how to get that money, and you should consider how well suited each strategy is for each goal. For instance, for a financial goal like paying relatively small short-term expenses (e.g., your electric bill), investing would probably not be the first choice for how to do that, because: a) there may be easier ways to achieve that goal (e.g., ask for a raise, eat out less); and b) the kinds of investment that could achieve that goal may not be the best use of your money (e.g., because they have lower returns).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7dcaebe389d9431bffa36af21264dc", "text": "Other than the exchange risk, one more thing to consider is interest rate risk and the returns you are generating from your money. If it is lying around in a current account with no interest then it is rational to keep it where you intend to stay(US or AUS). Now if your money is working for you, earning interest or has been invested in the market then it seems reasonable that you should put it where it earns the maximum for you. But that comes with a rider, the exchange risk you may have to bear if you are converting between the currencies. Do the returns earned by your money cancel out the FX rates moving up and down and still leave you with a positive return, compared with what you would earn if your money was where you stayed. Consider the below scenarios Do evaluate all your options before you transfer your money.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6540ddd71ea48f5d344288cc038c63e1	How much time does a doctor's office have to collect balance from me?	[ { "docid": "79f3951e521b723d7cec441f8987995e", "text": "\"They have forever to collect a balance from you. Furthermore they can add whatever penalties and fees they wish to increase that balance. Worst of all, they don't have to remind you or send you bills or any other notification. You owed it when you left the office. (There very well could be local laws that require notifications, but that isn't really the issue here.) That dentist has every right to deny you service until you settle the account. Forever. The statute of limitations on collecting that debt via court: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/when-does-your-debt-expire.aspx Which covers the rules on HOW LONG they have to collect the debt. Owing the money is one thing, but the rules and tools that you creditor has to collect the debt are another. You are probably worried about them suing you. But if you don't pay the debt (or settle in some way), that dentist can refuse to provide services to you, even if they write off the debt. Ways you can be punished by your dentist for not paying the bill are: Depending on your jurisdiction and/or type of debt, they typically only report it on your credit (if they are reporting at all) for 7 years. Even if you pay and settle the account, it will still be reported on your credit report for 7 years. The difference is how it is reported. They can report that \"\"user133466 is a super reliable person who always pays debts on time\"\". They can say \"\"user133466 is a flake who pays, but takes a while to pay\"\". Or they can say \"\"user133466 is a bad person to provide services before collecting money, because user133466 don't pay bills\"\". Other people considering lending you money are going to read these opinions and decide accordingly if they want to deal with you or not. And they can say that for 7 years. The idea of credit reporting is that you settle up as soon as possible and get your credit report to reflect the truth. One popular way to collect a debt to is to sue you for it. There, each state has a different time period on how long a creditor has to sue you for a debt. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/state-statutes-of-limitations-for-old-debts-1.aspx If you pay part of the debt, that will often reset the clock on the statute of limitations, so be sure any partial or negotiated settlements state very clearly, in writing, that payment is considered payment in full on the debt. Then you keep that record forever. There are other interesting points in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Debt collectors calling? Know your rights. They can only contact you in certain ways, they must respond to you in certain ways, and they have limits on what they can say, who they can say it to, and when they can say it. There are protections from mean or vicious bill collectors, but that doesn't sound like who you are dealing with. I don't know that the FDCPA is a tool you need to use in this case. You should negotiate your debt and try your best to settle up. From your post, both parties dropped the ball, and both parties should give a little. You should pay no or minor late fees, and the doctor should report your credit positively when you do so. If you both made honest mistakes, they both parties should acknowledge that and be fair, and not defensive. This is not legal advice. But you owe the debt, so you should settle up. I don't think it is fair for you to not pay because they didn't mail you a paper. However I also do not think it is fair for the doctor to run up fees and not remind you of the bill. Finally, you didn't bring up insurance or many other details. Those details can change the answer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4d0c174c50cc545ba42074ac6553474", "text": "If they had told me that I owe them $10,000 from 3 years ago, I wouldn't have anything to fight back. Why? First thing you have to do is ask for a proof. Have you received treatment? Have you signed the bill when you were done? This should include all the information about what you got and how much you agreed to pay. Do they have that to show to you, with your signature on it? If they don't - you owe nothing. If they do - you can match your bank/credit card/insurance records (those are kept for 7 years at least) and see what has been paid already. Can a doctor's office do that? They can do whatever they want. The right question is whether a doctor's office is allowed to do that. Check your local laws, States regulate the medical profession. Is there a statute of limitation (I'm just guessing) that forces them to notify me in a certain time frame? Statute of limitations limits their ability to sue you successfully. They can always sue you, but if the statute of limitations has passed, the court will throw the suite away (provided you bring this defense up on time of course). Without a judgement they cannot force you to pay them, they can only ask. Nicely, as the law quoted by MrChrister mandates. They can trash your credit report and send the bill to collections though, but if the statute of limitations has passed I doubt they'd do that. Especially if its their fault. I'm not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for definitive answers and legal advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45f2d7b866471abc707589c4e09d5403", "text": "Seems like the doctor's office is not very organized. Ask for a line itemized bill. You want the date and the specific service(s) performed on those dates. If the bill seems fair and correct, try to negotiate cash discount payment. Ask how much they would settle for if you paid cash. If it is higher than you were thinking, say you were not expecting this sudden bill and if they would accept $xxx. If they say yes, great. If not, try to compromise, pay the suggested offer, or not pay and hope they don't send it to collections.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "987eae0d63dd48045d0cd55b10e90597", "text": "You're certainly still responsible to pay what you owe the company given that: 1. for whatever reason, the recipient never received the checks. and 2. the money was credited back to you, albeit in a less than timely manner. However, if you take the time to explain the situation to the business, and show them proof that you sent the payments I would guess they would probably be willing to work with you on removing any late fees you have been assessed or possibly setting up a payment plan. Also, if you have been charged any overdraft or minimum balance fees by your bank while they held your money for the payments that was eventually credited back to your account, you might be able to get them to refund those if you explain what has happened. This is really a perfect example though of why balancing your checking account is as important today as it ever was.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4251db43b6ff75fe8e9e9d67f04f380a", "text": "Everything lies in In the end. How many days/weeks/months/years can you wait for your money back?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf48406e0cb79263a44382dd3c5badb0", "text": "All three credit bureaus allow you to file a dispute online. Some allow you to upload documentation at the same time, others will ask you to mail it to them. Send them the letter you got from your bank, they will then return to the collection company. For $300.00 most likely they will not pursue it any further and the credit bureaus will delete the entry from your file. If the collection company want to make a case out of it they will have to view to cost of trying to get a Court Judgment against the value of the amount they are claiming. Almost certainly they will view at not cost effective and your credit rating will return to where it was prior to the negative impact", "title": "" }, { "docid": "985c27490a1fc20d8f94bcadedf22034", "text": "Unfortunately I've seen every single example you've provided from the health care providers perspective. Trust me, they aren't happy about the situation either - hence the reason they will demand up front payment from you based on who your insurance carrier is. I could name a few of the top brand name insurance companies in this country that do all of this to their clients. Medical billing is an incredibly over complicated beast. One that insurance companies have been doing everything they can to make worse over the years. The codes can change annually and there are MANY different codes which can cover the exact same situation. Sure the insurance company might cover gallstones, but if you happen to be pregnant, well, that may not covered even though the treatment is the exact same. What can you do? Consider locating a new insurance company. You do have options and don't have to go with the one your company uses. The downside is that this is going to take quite a bit of research on your part and it will end up costing you more money on your monthly premiums simply because your company won't be footing part of the bill. Talk to other co-workers and see if their experiences match yours. If so, try to get a large enough group together to approach management and demand resolution. A third potential avenue is to get politically involved - but I'm enough of a pessimist that I doubt that would do any good. From what I've seen, neither major political party's current position actually does anything to solve the problem. A fourth option is suing the insurance company - but that is going to be incredibly expensive and take forever. You might have better luck getting together with a bunch of local people and demand your attorney general review the billing/payment practices. Again, this is going to require a LOT of effort. A fifth option is to attempt to cash pay your bills and submit them yourself to the insurance company for reimbursement. If you do this you can likely negotiate lower bills with the medical provider. For anything less than about $2,000 I negotiate the amount prior to service. Believe me when I say that providers are more than happy to give decent discounts if they know they won't have to deal with the insurance companies themselves. Slightly more work for you, but could be far cheaper in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fe8ad531b8303ea06ea6b21256025fe", "text": "I don't believe Saturday is a business day either. When I deposit a check at a bank's drive-in after 4pm Friday, the receipt tells me it will credit as if I deposited on Monday. If a business' computer doesn't adjust their billing to have a weekday due date, they are supposed to accept the payment on the next business day, else, as you discovered, a Sunday due date is really the prior Friday. In which case they may be running afoul of the rules that require X number of days from the time they mail a bill to the time it's due. The flip side to all of this, is to pick and choose your battles in life. Just pay the bill 2 days early. The interest on a few hundred dollars is a few cents per week. You save that by not using a stamp, just charge it on their site on the Friday. Keep in mind, you can be right, but their computer still dings you. So you call and spend your valuable time when ever the due date is over a weekend, getting an agent to reverse the late fee. The cost of 'right' is wasting ten minutes, which is worth far more than just avoiding the issue altogether. But - if you are in the US (you didn't give your country), we have regulations for everything. HR 627, aka The CARD act of 2009, offers - ‘‘(2) WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY DUE DATES.—If the payment due date for a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan is a day on which the creditor does not receive or accept payments by mail (including weekends and holidays), the creditor may not treat a payment received on the next business day as late for any purpose.’’. So, if you really want to pursue this, you have the power of our illustrious congress on your side.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c09c6c548e583d6ef140969061e5176f", "text": "As per the SIPC website: Most customers can expect to receive their property in one to three months. When the records of the brokerage firm are accurate, deliveries of some securities and cash to customers may begin shortly after the trustee receives the completed claim forms from customers, or even earlier if the trustee can transfer customer accounts to another broker-dealer. Delays of several months usually arise when the failed brokerage firm’s records are not accurate. It also is not uncommon for delays to take place when the troubled brokerage firm or its principals were involved in fraud. Source link: http://www.sipc.org/Who/SIPCQuestions/SIPCQuestion3.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4e009c73344d99ad5fc4c8dfe63a334", "text": "\"I would start with actually talking to the collection agency. Say what you are saying here, namely: \"\"I'm willing to pay the debt if the creditor can prove to me that I owe them\"\". You can also talk to the health facility, ask them for information or records. You can start there and see what happens. Once you are ready to pay the debt you can negotiate to have the negative mark removed from your report. It really depends on the collection agency. They could be reasonable, or the could be total scum.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13b0be848881f207f07f18d7f4d49e1", "text": "Your credit card company will send you funds, probably a paper check, if you have a negative balance. So this situation will not last long. I'd guess 3-6 months at most, depending on the company's procedures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9683095ddab1e14148cdb3672a3ab112", "text": "You should start by calling the clinic and asking them to tell you how the visit was coded. Some clinics have different billing codes based on the complexity of the visit. If you have one thing you are seeing the doctor about, that could be coded differently than if you have 4 things you are seeing the doctor about. In fact, even if you are there just for one ailment, but while you are there you happen to ask a few quick questions about other possible ailments, the doctor could decide to use the billing code for the higher complexity. If when speaking to the billing department it is determined that the visit is using a higher complexity billing code (and a higher charge as a result), you could then request that it be re-coded with the lower complexity visit. Realize if you request that they will probably have to first get approval from the doctor that saw you. Note: I am basing this answer on first hand experience about 6 months ago in Illinois, where the situation I described happened to me because I asked some unrelated questions about other possible ailments at the end of a visit to an after hours clinic. The billing department explained that my visit was coded for 4 issues. (3 of them were quick questions I asked about at the end of the visit, one of which she referred me to another doctor. My additional questions probably extended the visit by 3-4 minutes.) In my case I never got the bill reduced, mainly due to my own laziness and my knowing that I would hit my deductible anyway this year. Of course I can't say for sure if this is what happened in your case, or even if this practice is widespread. This was the first and only time in my life that I encountered it. As a side note, your primary doctor would likely rarely ever bill you for a more complex visit, as it likely wouldn't lead to much repeat business. As for your last question regarding your credit: if the provider decides to lower the price, and you pay the lower price, this in no way can affect your credit. Surprising Update: When I called the billing office months ago, I had asked if they could confirm the code with the doctor, and I was told they would look into it. I never heard back, never followed up, and assumed that was the end of it. Well, today I got a call back (months later) and was informed that they had re-coded the visit which will result in a lower charge! It's still pending the insurance adjustment but at some point in the future I expect to receive either a credit on my next statement or a check in the mail. (The price difference pre-insurance in my case has gone from $359 to $235.) Update: I did receive a check for the difference. The check was dated July 20, 2016, which is just over 2 months after the phone call informing me I would receive it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bbea649c7e431c0f3ff01003b0df303", "text": "You have not specified what country you are in. That radically changes everything. In case you are in Canada, there's a great blog that covers bankruptcy and student loans, at http://student-loan-bankruptcy.ca/. Fundamentally, in order to discharge government-backed student loans, you must have ceased to be a student for at least seven years prior to filing. Even then, though, the government can object, in which case you will still have to repay some or all of the loan. More generally, given that the collection agency appears to be operating in bad faith, you'll want to ensure that they send you written documentation of any offer they are extending you. If they refuse to do this, you should assume that they aren't actually offering you anything at all and you will have to pay back the full amount plus interest and penalties. Note that, in many countries, if you settle the debt (that is, pay anything less than the full amount plus interest and penalties), this will be a black mark on your credit report. In this case, if you repaid the full $16,000 and they forgave the extra $4,000, they would most likely still add a note to your credit report indicating that you did not pay the full amount that you owed, and this will negatively impact your credit rating even beyond your late payments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4d5b36c6388949ec974c465ff19a204", "text": "Seems like the straightforward answer is to call the provider and ask. They should be able to tell you if you owe them or not. Unfortunately, with small providers there is always a chance they won't get even that right; I would confirm exactly why they think you don't owe them anything if in fact you don't. Medical providers can go after you for years later, depending on your state; so don't assume just because it's been months that they won't eventually. Smaller providers aren't terribly organized, but they do usually eventually go after most of those who owe them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7d4f142cf332be743cc17958f4cef28", "text": "Sometimes I think a question like this is one of moral versus legal. The reality is that you know you owe the money because you received the services. You're right that the bill should have been sent to you, and the natural urge for many people is to just count it in the win column when things like this happen and there's the chance to avoid paying. I suppose my question for you is, are you comfortable with the notion that you are not paying something that your heart of hearts tells you should be paid? If roles were reversed and you, as a business owner, had forgotten to bill something for which you were rightfully due payment, wouldn't you hope they'd have the integrity to pay you anyway? The legal side of this can be a bit trickier, and much depends on the state you're in (assuming you're in the U.S.) because some have stiffer consumer collection and protection laws than others. The rehab center could, when doing an audit of its accounts, discover that you didn't pay for these. They could take the polite course of action and call you with a gentle reminder or send a bill, or they could be not so nice about it. Either way, they can't send anything to collections for which you haven't been presented a bill and demonstrated an unwillingness to pay. There's a process in place, regardless of the state, so they can't just automatically put it into collections. I will close with this question for you: did the rehab center help you with what you needed, and are you healthier and better because of their care? If so, pay the bill. That's my advice. Keep in mind that unpaid medical costs just raise the prices for everyone else, because these providers will make up for the loss somewhere. I hope this helps. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e18a3c6cbff373b8ab0f583250150a6", "text": "A friend of mine has two credit cards. He has specifically arranged with the card issuers so that the billing cycles are 15 days out of sync. He uses whichever card has more recently ended its billing cycle, which gives him the longest possible time between purchase and the due date to avoid interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc143d63cb8050b104d6cce96934297c", "text": "\"In addition to the good answers already provided, I want to point out that many (most?) providers will handle filing your health insurance claim for you even though it's really your responsibility. So here's how medical bills \"\"you don't have to pay\"\" might come about: * It's possible that your balance is $4, or $20, or $65, or even still $100 depending on your particular insurance plan. Whatever is left at this step is what you pay.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea", "text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7ebdb6f2f204921e758fe1ae0dbda31e	401k with paltry match or SPY ETF?	[ { "docid": "188dd86c3c336b20a110fb5413285e31", "text": "\"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f6a53aa69a54a982344454e7fb48230", "text": "I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math. What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY. A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9c3282d31b33acecbd05c2522be7f78", "text": "\"Switching to only 401k or only SPY? Both bad ideas. Read on. You need multiple savings vehicles. 401k, Roth IRA, emergency fund. You can/should add others for long term savings goals and wealth building. Though you could combine the non-tax-advantaged accounts and keep track of your minimum (representing the emergency fund). SPY is ETF version of SPDR index mutual fund tracking the S&P 500 index. Index funds buy weighted amounts of members of their index by an algorithm to ensure that the total holdings of the fund model the index that they track. They use market capitalization and share prices and other factors to automatically rebalance. Individual investors do not directly affect the composition or makeup of the S&P500, at least not visibly. Technically, very large trades might have a visible effect on the index makeup, but I suspect the size of the trade would be in the billions. An Electronically Traded Fund is sold by the share and represents one equal share of the underlying fund, as divided equally amongst all the shareholders. You put dollars into a fund, you buy shares of an ETF. In the case of an index ETF, it allows you to \"\"buy\"\" a fractional share of the underlying index such as the S&P 500. For SPY, 10 SPY shares represent one S&P basket. Targeted retirement plan funds combine asset allocation into one fund. They are a one stop shop for a diversified allocation. Beware the fees though. Always beware the fees. Fidelity offers a huge assortment of plans. You should look into what is available for you after you decide how you will proceed. More later. SPY is a ETF, think of it as a share of stock. You can go to a bank, broker, or what have you and set up an account and buy shares of it. Then you have x shares of SPY which is the ETF version of SPDR which is an index mutual fund. If the company is matching the first 10% of your income on a 1:1 basis, that would be the best I've heard of in the past two decades, even with the 10 year vesting requirement. If this is them matching 1 dollar in 10 that you contribute to 401k, it may be the worst I've ever heard of, especially with 10 year vesting. Typical is 3-5% match, 3-5 year vesting. Bottom line, that match is free money. And the tax advantage should not be ignored, even if there is no match. Research: I applaud your interest. The investments you make now will have the greatest impact on your retirement. Here's a scenario: If you can figure out how to live on 50% of your take home pay (100k * 0.90 * 0.60 * 0.5 / 12) (salary with first 10% in 401k at roughly 60% after taxes, social security, medicare, etc. halved and divided by 12 for a monthly amount), you'll have 2250 a month to live on. Since you're 28 and single, it's far easier for you to do than someone who is 50 and married with kids. That leaves you with 2250 a month to max out 401k and Roth and invest the rest in wealth building. After four or five years the amount your investments are earning will begin to be noticeable. After ten years or so, they will eclipse your contributions. At that point you could theoretically live of the income. This works with any percentage rate, and the higher your savings rate is, the lower your cost of living amount is, and the faster you'll hit an investment income rate that matches your cost of living amount. At least that's the early retirement concept. The key, as far as I can tell, is living frugally, identifying and negating wasteful spending, and getting the savings rate high without forcing yourself into cheap behavior. Reading financial independence blog posts tells me that once they learn to live frugally, they enjoy it. It's a lot of work, and planning, but if you want to be financially independent, you are definitely in a good position to consider it. Other notes:\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ba92dda80ec4ee9b2a01658aad4269a3", "text": "\"The policy you quoted suggests you deposit 6% minimum. That $6,000 will cost you $4,500 due to the tax effect, yet after the match, you'll have $9,000 in the account. Taxable on withdrawal, but a great boost to the account. The question of where is less clear. There must be more than the 2 choices you mention. Most plans have 'too many' choices. This segues into my focus on expenses. A few years back, PBS Frontline aired a program titled The Retirement Gamble, in which fund expenses were discussed, with a focus on how an extra 1% in expenses will wipe out an extra 1/3 of your wealth in a 40 year period. Very simple to illustrate this - go to a calculator and enter .99 raised to the power of 40. .669 is the result. My 401(k) has an expense of .02% (that's 1/50 of 1%) .9998 raised to the same 40 gives .992, in other words, a cost of .8% over the full 40 years. My wife and I are just retired, and will have less in expenses for the rest of our lives than the average account cost for just 1 year. In your situation, the knee-jerk reaction is to tell you to maximize the 401(k) deposit at the current (2016) $18,000. That might be appropriate, but I'd suggest you look at the expense of the S&P index (sometime called Large Cap Fund, but see the prospectus) and if it's costing much more than .75%/yr, I'd go with an IRA (Roth, if you can't deduct the traditional IRA). Much of the value of the 401(k) beyond the match is the tax differential, i.e. depositing while in the 25% bracket, but withdrawing the funds at retirement, hopefully at 15%. It doesn't take long for the extra expense and the \"\"holy cow, my 401(k) just turned decades of dividends and long term cap gains into ordinary income\"\" effect to take over. Understand this now, not 30 years hence. Last - to answer your question, 'how much'? I often recommend what may seem a cliche \"\"continue to live like a student.\"\" Half the country lives on $54K or less. There's certainly a wide gray area, but in general, a person starting out will choose one of 2 paths, living just at, or even above his means, or living way below, and saving, say, 30-40% off the top. Even 30% doesn't hit the extreme saver level. If you do this, you'll find that if/when you get married, buy a house, have kids, etc. you'll still be able to save a reasonable percent of your income toward retirement. In response to your comment, what counts as retirement savings? There's a concept used as part of the budgeting process known as the envelope system. For those who have an income where there's little discretionary money left over each month, the method of putting money aside into small buckets is a great idea. In your case, say you take me up on the 30-40% challenge. 15% of it goes to a hard and fast retirement account. The rest, to savings, according to the general order of emergency fund, 6-12 months expenses, to cover a job loss, another fund for random expenses, such as new transmission (I've never needed one, but I hear they are expensive), and then the bucket towards house down payment. Keep in mind, I have no idea where you live or what a reasonable house would cost. Regardless, a 20-25% downpayment on even a $250K house is $60K. That will take some time to save up. If the housing in your area is more, bump it accordingly. If the savings starts to grow beyond any short term needs, it gets invested towards the long term, and is treated as \"\"retirement\"\" money. There is no such thing as Saving too much. When I turned 50 and was let go from a 30 year job, I wasn't unhappy that I saved too much and could call it quits that day. Had I been saving just right, I'd have been 10 years shy of my target.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bfb84347c0934c5167e45eb7449c734", "text": "\"Target Date Bond ETFs: Best or Worst Fixed Income Funds? references a product at least in terms of being a bond fund that exists, Target Date Bond ETFs. While the article is a bit old as it came out 7 months ago, \"\"AMT Free Municipal Bonds by iShares\"\" would be the product to explore and see if the ticker exists. Shares Launches 2018 Muni Bond ETF may be the product you want assuming a 5 year time frame as the final date referenced in the article is Aug. 31, 2018 approximately. Remember to do your own research but this would seem to be what you wanted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05e8a548c57aff8ca22b6b80d33de652", "text": "One thing you didn't mention is whether the 401(k) offers a match. If it does, this is a slam-dunk. The $303 ($303, right?) is $3636/yr that will be doubled on deposit. It's typical for the first 5% of one's salary to capture the match, so this is right there. In 15 years, you'll still owe $76,519. But 15 * $7272 is $109,080 in your 401(k) even without taking any growth into account. The likely value of that 401(k) is closer to $210K, using 8% over that 15 years, (At 6%, it drops to 'only' $176K, but as I stated, the value of the match is so great that I'd jump right on that.) If you don't get a match of any kind, I need to edit / completely rip my answer. It morphs into whether you feel that 15 years (Really 30) the market will exceed the 4% cost of that money. Odds are, it will. The worst 15 year period this past century 2000-2014 still had a CAGR of 4.2%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "deadd2ee49ae396eaa2f340a6c7beb6a", "text": "\"Logic fail. The qty of shares is irrelevant. What matters is the value, which is, of course, quite high -- and, what's more, the P/E ratio, which is extremely favorable. Having worked in operations at Apple for 7 years, I can tell you that the company is very lean and efficient. 25% matching is extremely generous. 25% contribution rates are standard in corporate jobs (contribution rates are what maximum percentage of your pre-tax income you can opt to set aside into a 401K; this is different than matching). It absolutely is not bare bones to be given 25% matching. Although I no longer work at Apple, I still have my 401K, and the administration of it is good, as is the choice of funds. Back to the matching... It's free money. For every $1 you put in your 401K (pretax, btw), Apple puts in a quarter. Having worked in other corporations over my career, I can tell you that this level of matching is pretty much as good as it gets. For a good part of the time I worked there I made around $30K (not in Retail, but in Operations, as mentioned before). I maxed out the Employee Stock Purchase Program contribution and mostly maxed out my 401K contribution. Now, 12 years later, my stock appreciated beyond my wildest expectations. I have made well over six figures on it over the years. If I never sold any, it would be worth over $500,000 by now. All that from 10% contributions on a salary that ranged from about $26K when I started out to about $46K when I left 7 years later. My 401K holdings are worth about $60K, I think, invested extremely conservatively. I have had it in money market funds since right before the 2008/2009 crash, which I anticipated. So the investment benefits at Apple served me extremely well. My stock appreciation paid for my car, and it will soon cover the down payment on a house. I was essentially able to \"\"retire\"\" to be a stay-at-home-mom when my son was born, thanks to the safety net I have from my Apple stock. Regarding health benefits... I think you meant to say copays, not deductibles. When I was there, there were no copays. I forgot what the deductibles were, but for most routine visits, you wouldn't need to pay out of pocket. Annual physicals are included in the health plan, up to $250. The health plan works with various local providers to ensure that the $250 allotment will cover all expenses needed for an annual physical. This physical is separate and in addition to a women's health annual exam (pap smear/pelvic exam/etc) that is also included without copay. I'm pretty sure annual mammograms are covered. All prenatal visits are covered with zero copay. All child well checks, including immunizations, covered with zero copay. Two dental checks a year. Dental Xrays at regular intervals included. Annual vision exams and, I think $300 annually towards glasses or contacts included, IIRC. Time off was pretty standard and accrued by the hour worked, which was nice. There was no \"\"you have to be with the company for X length of time\"\" before time off benefits began to accrue, or before any benefits kicked in, for that matter. By about Year 5, I had easily racked up enough vacation days to take 3 weeks off at a time. The longer you have been with the company, the faster your time off accrues. And each summer they'd offer a cash-out program, where you could double up on time off, where if you took off a week, you could opt to deplete your accrued vacation time by two weeks and get double pay for it. A lot of people liked this option. The points for absenteeism thing seemed a bit silly -- and seemed to only have been implemented in one store and then only for a brief time. From what I gathered in the article, it was an experiment that failed miserably. The other corporation I have spent a significant amount of time working at is Whole Foods Market, in their corporate office. While both Apple and Whole Foods always are selected as two of the top companies to work for by Forbes in their annual report, as far as benefits went, Apple's were far superior in most aspects. With respect to company culture, I personally found Whole Foods to be better, but that was sort of a personal preference. Both were dream jobs, and I consider myself very fortunate to have had the opportunity to work for two outstanding companies that both treated me very well. Oh- and incidentally, Ron Johnson, who was VP of Retail at Apple from the inception of the stores until like a year ago, now is CEO of JC Penny, and, I suspect, is fully behind JCP's ad campaigns which include images of families with same-sex parents. JCP has stepped deliberately and full-on into what is, unfortunately, still a controversial topic and has taken a firm stand in support of all types of loving families. I have to wonder if part of this might have been inspired by the fact that Apple's new CEO, Tim Cook, is gay. Ron Johnson would have worked closely alongside Cook during his tenure. I met Ron once and found him to be a great guy, and I worked with the Retail operations folks from the time the stores launched. They were a great team that worked hard and were very sincere and dedicated. You could see his leadership reflecting in each member of the team.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3623cb3175230cdde8f3cf5abed78175", "text": "\"Following comments to your question here, you posted a separate question about why SPY, SPX, and the options contract don't move perfectly together. That's here Why don't SPY, SPX, and the e-mini s&p 500 track perfectly with each other? I provided an answer to that question and will build on it to answer what I think you're asking on this question. Specifically, I explained what it means that these are \"\"all based on the S&P.\"\" Each is a different entity, and different market forces keep them aligned. I think talking about \"\"technicals\"\" on options contracts is going to be too confusing since they are really a very different beast based on forward pricing models, so, for this question, I'll focus on only SPY and SPX. As in my other answer, it's only through specific market forces (the creation / redemption mechanism that I described in my other answer), that they track at all. There's nothing automatic about this and it has nothing to do with some issuer of SPY actually holding stock in the companies that comprise the SPX index. (That's not to say that the company does or doesn't hold, just that this doesn't drive the prices.) What ever technical signals you're tracking, will reflect all of the market forces at play. For SPX (the index), that means some aggregate behavior of the component companies, computed in a \"\"mathematically pure\"\" way. For SPY (the ETF), that means (a) the behavior of SPX and (b) the behavior of the ETF as it trades on the market, and (c) the action of the authorized participants. These are simply different things. Which one is \"\"right\"\"? That depends on what you want to do. In theory you might be able to do some analysis of technical signals on SPY and SPX and, for example, use that to make money on the way that they fail to track each other. If you figure out how to do that, though, don't post it here. Send it to me directly. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cd06ae32ff149087f213ba7ce9abff8", "text": "\"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60935e537431524f993dfcf5f2c5a13a", "text": "Go with a Vanguard ETF. I had a lengthy discussion with a successful broker who runs a firm in Chicago. He boiled all of finance down to Vanguard ETF and start saving with a roth IRA. 20 years of psychology research shows that there's a .01 correlation (that's 1/100 of 1%) of stock/mutual fund performance to prediction. That's effectively zero. You can read more about it in the book Thinking Fast and Slow. Investors have ignored this research for years. The truth is you'd be just as successful if you picked your mutual funds out of a hat. But I'll recommend you go with a broker's advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d2575931e7d2b1704a1830353b1842d", "text": "\"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc89ac65703cbe166a0f98fdfe4dba54", "text": "\"Use VTIVX. The \"\"Target Retirement 2045\"\" and \"\"Target Retirement 2045 Trust Plus\"\" are the same underlying fund, but the latter is offered through employers. The only differences I see are the expense ratio and the minimum investment dollars. But for the purposes of comparing funds, it should be pretty close. Here is the list of all of Vanguard's target retirement funds. Also, note that the \"\"Trust Plus\"\" hasn't been around as long, so you don't see the returns beyond the last few years. That's another reason to use plain VTIVX for comparison. See also: Why doesn't a mutual fund in my 401(k) have a ticker symbol?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b7e320140cb160edf6285aa29e5afc", "text": "I don't think it has to be either-or. You can profitably invest inside the SIMPLE. (Though I wouldn't put in any more than the 1% it takes to get the match.) Let's look at some scenarios. These assume salary of $50k/year so the numbers are easy. You can fill in your own numbers to see the outcome, but the percentages will be the same. Let it sit in cash in the SIMPLE. You put in 1%, your employer matches with 1%. Your account balance is $1,000 (at the end of the year), plus a small amount of interest. Cost to you is $500 from your gross pay. 100% return on your contributions, yay! Likely 0-1% real returns going forward; you'll be lucky to keep up with inflation over the long term. Short term not so bad. Buy shares of index ETFs in the SIMPLE; let's assume the fee works out to 10%. You put in 1%, employer matches 1%. Your contributions are $500, fees are $100, your balance is $900 in ETFs. 80% instant return, and possible 6-7% real long term returns going forward. Buy funds in the SIMPLE; assume the load is 5%, management fee is 1% and you can find something that behaves like an index fund (so it is theoretically comparable to above). 1% from you, 1% from employer. Your contributions are $500, load fees are $50, your balance is $950. 90% instant return, and possible 5-6% real long term returns going forward (assuming the 6-7% real returns of equities are reduced by the 1% management fee). (You didn't list out the fees, and they're probably different for the different fund choices, so fill in your own details and do the math.) Invest outside the SIMPLE in the same ETFs or equivalent no load index funds; let's assume you can do this with no fees. You put in the same 1% of your gross (ignoring any difference that might come from paying FICA) into a self directed traditional IRA. At the end of the year the balance is $500. So deciding whether or not to take the match is a no brainer: take it. Deciding whether you should hold cash, ETFs, or (one of two types of) funds in your SIMPLE is a little trickier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa0ef326df4465ff87ce2aea2d17493a", "text": "What is your time horizon? Over long horizons, you absolutely want to minimise the expense ratio – a seemingly puny 2% fee p.a. can cost you a third of your savings over 35 years. Over short horizons, the cost of trading in and trading out might matter more. A mutual fund might be front-loaded, i.e. charge a fixed initial percentage when you first purchase it. ETFs, traded daily on an exchange just like a stock, don't have that. What you'll pay there is the broker commission, and the bid-ask spread (and possibly any premium/discount the ETF has vis-a-vis the underlying asset value). Another thing to keep in mind is tracking error: how closely does the fond mirror the underlying index it attempts to track? More often than not it works against you. However, not sure there is a systematic difference between ETFs and funds there. Size and age of a fund can matter, indeed - I've had new and smallish ETFs that didn't take off close down, so I had to sell and re-allocate the money. Two more minor aspects: Synthetic ETFs and lending to short sellers. 1) Some ETFs are synthetic, that is, they don't buy all the underlying shares replicating the index, actually owning the shares. Instead, they put the money in the bank and enter a swap with a counter-party, typically an investment bank, that promises to pay them the equivalent return of holding that share portfolio. In this case, you have (implicit) credit exposure to that counter-party - if the index performs well, and they don't pay up, well, tough luck. The ETF was relying on that swap, never really held the shares comprising the index, and won't necessarily cough up the difference. 2) In a similar vein, some (non-synthetic) ETFs hold the shares, but then lend them out to short sellers, earning extra money. This will increase the profit of the ETF provider, and potentially decrease your expense ratio (if they pass some of the profit on, or charge lower fees). So, that's a good thing. In case of an operational screw up, or if the short seller can't fulfil their obligations to return the shares, there is a risk of a loss. These two considerations are not really a factor in normal times (except in improving ETF expense ratios), but during the 2009 meltdown they were floated as things to consider. Mutual funds and ETFs re-invest or pay out dividends. For a given mutual fund, you might be able to choose, while ETFs typically are of one type or the other. Not sure how tax treatment differs there, though, sorry (not something I have to deal with in my jurisdiction). As a rule of thumb though, as alex vieux says, for a popular index, ETFs will be cheaper over the long term. Very low cost mutual funds, such as Vanguard, might be competitive though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf11a18f0b61c31cae4772b7d6a1112e", "text": "Vanguard has low cost ETFs that track the S&P 500. The ticker is VOO, its expense ratio is 0.05%, which is pretty low compared to others in the market. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you won't have to pay tax on the dividends if it's in a retirement account such as a Traditional(pay taxes when you withdraw) or Roth IRA(pay income/federal/fica etc, but no taxes on withdrawal)...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "256728116ce855af89d29eb93f353f63", "text": "I'm of the belief that, long term, fees eat away at your performance. If you chose an ETF, say VOO, with its .05% expense, and a short term bond fund or money market fund, you are going be ahead, long term. It's pretty much accepted fact that money managers are not beating the average long term. For you to simply do as well as I do (S&P less .05%) your guy has to beat the market year in, year out, by 1.2%. Not going to happen. Yes, in hindsight, some funds have done this. Over the decades, losing funds are closed, or merged into performing ones. But, in the end, the average fund lags the average market return quite a bit. To pay someone 25% over two decades isn't what I'd recommend to anyone. There was recently a PBS Frontline special, The Retirement Gamble, (and this link to my article reviewing the show). I put up an image which shows the effect of 50 years' impact of expenses. The Vanguard S&P ETF, linked earlier has just a .05% fee. In my chart I show .1%, and then a total 1% or 2% fee. $447K return for .1%, $294K for 1%. I'm painfully aware that 3/4 of US taxpayers aren't saving at all. For those that are savers, the value in learning about investing is huge. This isn't a onetime $150K saved, but the savings on just that $10K deposit. Meanwhile, before you learn this, a pay-for-his-time fee-only planner is worth it, for a meeting and first year follow up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b34aa7326520b675b329ec563884becd", "text": "\"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c21e6b33e344cde621f9eea0c8521379	Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?	[ { "docid": "9194142cb6b4c2f6092eb59362dd0019", "text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdaf53ad403f045172b9a761632d82dd", "text": "\"You ask a question, \"\"Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?\"\" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this: This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having \"\"all of one's eggs in one basket.\"\" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility. I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "efafef52a164dc64b4961b50003b6953", "text": "Bitcoin isn't exactly backed by any substantial economic factors, like a good, skill, etc., and people are less familiar with it than a bond. The idea of currency existing as debt has been with humankind for thousands of years, and we've just forgotten, so I thought using the bond equivalent wold refresh that thought in peoples minds, and begin a period of rethinking our culture on social and economic terms.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a292093e9a0f0ce7871e0b2312b7f0f8", "text": "I've recently started studying a bit of finance (I am a software developer) and have a question regarding the Bank of England (BoE) announcement. The BoE agreed in maintaining its current interest rate (0.25% I think), although it announced it would be buying GILT (Government Bonds), wouldn't the purchase of bonds by a central bank make the interest rate move down? Isn't the goal of a central bank purchasing bonds, to move the interest rate? Is there a difference between adding liquidity to the market (increasing money supply) and changing the interest rate? Can these two things be separated? Thank you :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52ec3ac54366f8034c62e3e58a52a015", "text": "Running a fiscal deficit means a government is spending more money than it is taking in as taxes, fees, penalties, fines, etc, with the extra money that is being spent being borrowed by selling bonds to willing buyers. Interest paid to said buyers is another government expense in future years, and of course, the bonds must ultimately be redeemed and the buyers paid off. The buyers of the bonds must have some confidence that they will get the interest they have been promised as well as be paid off ultimately. As the government's indebtedness increases, buyers are likely to demand higher interest rates as inducements to buy the bonds. And so it goes...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3f5aa8893ae0fea90232779fcb22b47", "text": "Yes, if you want income and are willing to commit to hold a bond to maturity, you can hold the bond, get the scheduled payments, and get your principal returned at the end. US Savings Bonds are non-marketable (you cannot trade them, but can redeem early) bonds designed for this purpose. The value of a marketable bond will vary over its lifetime as interest rates change and the bond matures. If you buy a 30 year US Treasury bond at par value (100) on September 1, 2011, it yielded 3.51%. If rates fall, the value of your bond will increase over 100. If rates rise, the value will decrease below 100. How much the value changes depends on the type of bond and the demand for it. But if your goal is to buy and hold, you don't need to worry about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14cee9078b37b49a75d3694d935e28bd", "text": "And this is bad why? What is the total funding? What is the total return? Do you have the necessary facts to evaluate this? Basing opinions on partial evidence makes poor public policy. Most municipal bonds might actually work out for the better good of communities. Certainly the total amount of bonds listed as going bad in this story is a tiny, tiny fraction of total bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a", "text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9029326b9e5b19d848a42a55f34439f4", "text": "AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7a66aad95b9c6b7ab472878f1956f3d", "text": "This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c96a10c6eee402bcb40dbc20e9facc5", "text": "Unless stated otherwise, these terms apply to all bonds. The par value or face value of a bond refers to the value of the bond when it's redeemed at maturity. A bond with a par value of $10,000 simply means that if you purchase the bond and hold it until the maturity date specified in the contract, you receive $10,000. The purchase price, however, is exactly that: it's what you paid for the bond. Bonds may sell below, at, or above par. Continuing the example from above, if you paid $9,800 for a bought a bond with a $10,000 par value, you bought the bond below par. A bond selling below par is said to be selling at a discount. For bonds selling above bar, they're selling at a premium. If the purchase price and the par value are the same, the bond is selling at par. These terms apply to callable bonds only, which are bond contracts that allow the issuer of the bond (in the case of municipal bonds, the institution or agency who created the contract) to buy back from bond holders at a given date (the call date) and at a given price (the call price) before the bond reaches maturity and pays the holder the full par value. Yes, the coupon rate is essentially the interest paid. It's usually represented as a percent of the par value, so if the $10,000 in the example above had a 5% coupon rate, this means that it paid out 0.05 * 10,000 = $500 each year. Usually, this payment is made as two semi-annual payments of $250. Some bonds are zero-coupon bonds, which means exactly what you would think; they don't make any coupon payments. U.S. Treasury Bills are one example of a zero-coupon bond. All of these factors are linked, because the coupon rate, callable provisions, and par value, along with the overall economic environment, can affect the purchase price of a bond.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1153acc2c4b339189bdcf1f88d1b7e5", "text": "When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "845477d89e3c5ff7b89554405e5d8b21", "text": "\"I don't like buying individual bonds for my own portfolio. I actually used to buy long-term government strip bonds (Canadas or provincial bonds) but I stopped. Here are some reasons why: My broker allows me to purchase bonds via their web application. However, to sell a bond, I had to call in to the fixed-income trading desk. That was inconvenient. (But your broker may be different.) Bonds don't typically trade on a formal exchange. So, there's no cheap & easy way (as far as I know) to get an independent quote for a bond's value – I had to trust what my broker said my bond was worth when assessing my portfolio performance. I asked my broker once how they arrive at the \"\"market value\"\" shown – i.e. whether it was last bid, ask, or actual trade – and I was told they use a third party bond quotation / valuation information provider for the data, and that quotes are an estimate of what the bond would be worth, based on similar bonds. I quickly learned that wasn't the value I could actually get when selling it: When you're dealing with your broker to buy and sell bonds, you're likely dealing with theirs or a related investment bank which makes a market for specific issues of bonds. While I wasn't being charged an explicit commission to buy or sell bonds, it was evident the broker makes money off the spread: That is, the difference between what they would be willing to sell a bond for and what they would be willing to buy that same bond for. They will buy your bond back from you cheaper than what they could turn around and sell it to somebody else for. That's why they don't charge an explicit commission... it's built in and hidden! Anyway, when I finally discovered my broker would seldom actually offer me the \"\"market value\"\" quoted for my bonds (typically, it would be bought back for a few percent less than it were theoretically worth), I gave up. I don't think bonds simply are liquid enough, nor the costs transparent enough for retail investors. (Or maybe it's just me :-) However, I do think bonds remain an important part of a diversified portfolio: Bonds ought to be represented in a diversified portfolio using low-cost bond index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. Since these funds buy & sell bonds in large quantities, they get a better deal on the spreads. So, while you do pay an explicit management fee for a fund, you are probably saving since you're not getting shafted on the spreads.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0", "text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "020d22d766952e6008bf848df7c060d2", "text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f0cc6bb61f9c5b56558eef57ce1ed1a", "text": "\"You ask two questions - First - the market value can drop for two reasons (that I know), the company itself may have issues, and investors don't trust they'll be paid, or a general rise in interest rates. In the latter case, there's little to worry about, but for the former, well, that's your decision, you say \"\"the company is in trouble\"\" yet you believe they'll pay. Tough call. Second - yes, when a bond matures, the money appears in your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1ec0ea7df028b05d375bd3ee26928e6", "text": "Most reflationary policies are talking about stopping, so hopefully in 2018 the CBs will stopping buying so much. BOJ is rethinking their policy of buying treasuries when our US yields start to rise (to shrink them and protect their currency). So hopefully once we get past global QE, things can get back to a more “normal” status. As far as advice on finding value...err...good luck? [Growth of Monetary Base and M2 chart in article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part) Also look at how the money multiplier is shrinking.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1a25b6dba0a87cf007da025cf1061f5c	What are the easier to qualify home loans in Canada?	[ { "docid": "160c0c232a3aba5dec6ef74af637a6af", "text": "Your credit score is really bad, and it's highly unlikely anyone will be willing to give you a mortgage, especially if you still have bad debt showing up on your credit report. What would help? Well, clearing off any bad debt would be a good place to start. Ideally, you want to get your credit rating up above 680, though that may be optimistic here. Note, though, that bad debt falls off your credit report after a while. Exactly how long depends on your province. Note that making partial payment, or even just acknowledging the debt, will reset the 'timer', however. I mention this, though, because you mention some of your debt is from 5 or 6 years ago. It may be just about to fall off. It would also help if you can show that your credit is so bad because of mistakes from a number of years ago, but you've been making payments and staying on top of all debts for the past few years, if that's the case. Also, it would help if you had a reasonable downpayment. 20% minimum, but you'll be a lower credit risk if you are able to put down 50 - 75%. You could also consider having someone with good credit co-sign the mortgage. Note that most people will not be willing to do this, as they take on substantial financial risk. All that said, there are some institutions which specialise in dealing with no credit or bad credit customers. You pay more fees and will pay a vastly higher interest rate, but this may be a good option for you. Check out mortgage brokers specialising in high-risk clients. You can also consider a rent-to-own, but almost all the advice I've ever seen say to avoid these if you can. One late payment and you may lose all the equity you think you've been building up. Note that things may be different if you are moving from the U.S. to Canada, and have no credit history in Canada. In that case, you may have no credit rather than bad credit. Most banks still won't offer you a mortgage in this case, but some lenders do target recent immigrants. Don't rule out renting. For many people, regardless of their credit rating, renting is a better option. The monthly payments may be lower, you don't need a downpayment, you don't have to pay realtor and legal fees (and pay again if you need to move). A couple of sites provide more information on how your credit rating affects your possibility of getting a mortgage, and how to get mortgages with bad credit: http://mortgages.ca/credit-score-needed-mortgage-canada/ and http://mortgages.ca/mortgage-solutions/new-to-canada-financing/, along with http://www.ratehub.ca/mortgage-blog/2013/11/how-to-get-a-mortgage-with-bad-credit/", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9e4e5154c4a2adf1d4ec1972f97af03c", "text": "I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb1edfca2ef6e43d3b7e8ff2e4131440", "text": "Risk is the problem, as others have pointed out. Your fixed mortgage interest rate is for a set period of time only. Let's say your 3% might be good for five years, because that's typical of fixed-rate mortages in Canada. So, what happens in five years if your investment has dropped 50% due to a prolonged bear market, and interest rates have since moved up from 3% to 8%? Your investment would be underwater, and you wouldn't have enough to pay off the loan and exit the failed strategy. Rather, you might just be stuck with renewing the mortage at a rate that makes the strategy far less attractive, being more likely to lose money in the long run than to earn any. Leverage, or borrowing to invest, amplifies your risk considerably. If you invest your own money in the market, you might lose what you started with, but if you borrow to invest, you might lose much more than you started with. There's also one very specific issue with the example investment you've proposed: You would be borrowing Canadian dollars but investing in an index fund of U.S.-based companies that trade in U.S. dollars. Even if the index has positive returns in U.S. dollar terms, you might end up losing money if the Canadian dollar strengthens vs. the U.S. dollar. It has happened before, multiple times. So, while this strategy has worked wonderfully in the past, it has also failed disastrously in the past. Unless you have a crystal ball, you need to be aware of the various risks and weigh them vs. the potential rewards. There is no free lunch.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3519245e2bbed46d3af790588ad319f8", "text": "There are a few loan programs that grant exceptions to bankruptcy requirements in the event of extenuating circumstances that can be proven to be outside of your control (i.e. massive medical bills that you used bankruptcy to settle, etc.) however, in order to make the case for this exemption, you would need to make a strong case for your solvency, shown the ability to re-establish your credit reputation since the discharge of your bankruptcy, and would almost certainly have to go through a bank that offers manual underwriting. Additionally, if you are Native American, the HUD-184 program is a great option for your situation as it allows for a wide latitude in terms of underwriter discretion and is always manually underwritten as there is no automated underwriting system developed for the loan program. There are several great lenders that offer nationwide financing (as long as you're in a HUD-184 eligible area) and would be a great potential solution if you meet the qualifying parameter of being Native American.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66e95cc2d4756ef1261006aef5665ad3", "text": "Social Lending may help you qualify for a loan, but doesn't necessarily provide better rates. You have to shop around to get the best rates, this is a market as any other, so don't expect one place to be consistently below the market - either the market will move, or the place will move eventually, everyone wants to earn the most for the buck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "120cf9202bca8afdba204800dc6de075", "text": "\"Rather than trying to indirectly game your credit score, I would instead shop around and see if there are other lenders that will pre-qualify you with your credit the way it is today. BofA and other large banks can be very formulaic in how they qualify loans; a local bank or credit union may be more willing to bend the traditional \"\"rules\"\" and pre-qualify you. I'm thinking about using FHA. If you can put 20% down then a conventional mortgage will likely be cheaper than an FHA loan since FHA loans have mortgage insurance built-in while conventional mortgages typically don't require it if you borrow less than 80% of the house's value. I would shop around before jumping to an FHA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c28113c66144469a5f01077890c0d6a2", "text": "I understand your process. I just don't think many people on Reddit have put together a $100M loan. Hell not a lot of people period have done that. I'd think the council or banks you are working with would have that experience. When in doubt, just do what I do. Find something for a $1M loan and add a few zero's to it! You mentioned the cold storage business - something I am very interested in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ea9a62265fcf4949947d15397964d13", "text": "\"The only way to \"\"roll\"\" debt into a home purchase is to have sufficient down payment. Under the \"\"new\"\" lending rules that took effect in Canada earlier this year, you must have at least 5% of the purchase price as a down payment. If you have $60,000 in additional debt, the total amount of mortgage still cannot be greater than 95% of the purchase price. Below is an example. Purchase price of home $200,000. Maximum mortgage $190,000 (95% of purchase price) Total outside debt $60,000 That means the mortgage (other than the current debt of $60k) can only be $130,000 This means you would need a down payment of $70,000. Also keep in mind that I have not included any other legal fees, real estate commissions, etc in this example. Since it is safe to assume that you do not have $70k available for a down payment, renting and paying down the debt is likely the better route. Pay off the credit card(s) first as they have the higher interest amount. Best of luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "993e74f21978e5fdadfd067d7ee9cd47", "text": "According to my wife who used to work in the industry, since an investment mortgage is more likely to fail (they are just riskier) there are higher loan to value requirements and higher interest rates. They are just different products for different situations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "516da182f7042c936cfb4e522a1d5230", "text": "As sdg said, the consensus is that the CPP is pretty solid. An actuarial report is submitted to Parliament every three years, and it's worth getting the numbers from that report so you know where your CPP contributions are invested. You may think there's more risk in CPP's portfolio than they let on. Either way, your own savings and investments are the best defense against inadequacy of the CPP. But you should be careful, as the CPP mostly invests in the same stuff the retail investor does - equity and fixed income. So the typical investor will be exposed to the risks as the CPP fund. However, CPP is not the only source of retirement income for Canadians. There is also the Guaranteed Income Supplement and Old Age Security, and they are funded differently from CPP. CPP benefits are funded by returns from the investment fund, as well as contributions. GIS and OAS are paid out of the Government of Canada's revenue each year. In my opinion, those programs are more vulnerable than CPP as they could just be legislated out of existence in tough economic times. (However, I also see that as unlikely because the elderly are a pretty powerful block of voters.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af5fa73a378d3cb8c758b0030f400d24", "text": "A better idea if applicable is to borrow 50K (max allowed) to buy a house and pay interest to yourself instead of a bank. And none of that origination and closing fees lost to the lender", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f4604ce91a2ff65c4323883bf474f40", "text": "Now, if you're still intrested, Mint.com works also for Canadian banks. Mint Canada", "title": "" }, { "docid": "944043c4c9d8348c585222be3451c1ef", "text": "Generally speaking the lower credit score trumps. In the case you cite, the lower credit score will prevail. However, you may need to do exactly that in order to qualify for the loan income wise. There are two factors when obtaining a mortgage, really all loans, but more so with a mortgage: the likeliness to repay (credit score), and your ability to service the debt. This last one is a combination of income and debt-to-income ratio. If you don't have enough income to qualify for the loan or fail to meet the debt to income ration, you may have to use your GF's income to qualify despite her poor credit. You might want to see past posts about buying property with non-spouses. It could work, but generally it requires a lot of legal work before closing on the deal. Avoiding this will lead to tales of woe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23f97e1fd4e6b6eb4fd2787b1b46e3d0", "text": "The new mortgage qualification rules were introduced to cool a hot Canadian housing real estate market. The rules are a pre-emptive measure intended to avoid a bubble (and later crash) in real estate. The government wants to make sure anybody buying a house can handle higher interest rates. Those rates, currently at record lows, are expected to go up later this year and into the future. The tighter mortgage rules include: Borrowers will need to qualify against a minimum standard 5-year fixed rate mortgage, even if they'll contract their mortgage at a lower or variable rate. Previously, the 3-year fixed rate mortgage was used as the minimum qualification standard. The amount a homeowner can borrow in a refinanced mortgage drops to 90% of the home value, down from 95% of the home value. A home is not meant to be an ATM machine. Anybody wanting to borrow to buy an investment property – i.e. a property that won't be their principal residence – will need a 20% downpayment instead of a 5% downpayment. The new rules go into effect April 19th, 2010. However, according to the backgrounder (see below): Exceptions would be allowed after April 19 where they are needed to satisfy a binding purchase and sale, financing, or refinancing agreement entered into before April 19, 2010. Definitive information about the new rules can be found at the Department of Finance of Canada. Specifically, refer to: Some additional news media sources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20066787147b6ee9c8164b361abcc108", "text": "The monthly payment difference isn't that great On a $300K loan, the 30 year monthly payment (at 4%) is $1432, the 15 year (at 3.5%) is $2145, that $712 per month, or 50% higher payment. $712 is the total utility or food bill for a couple. If that $1432 represents 25% of income (a reasonable number) then $2145 is over 35%. I'd rather use that money for something else and not obligate myself at the start of the mortgage. Given how little we save as a country, the $712 is best put into a matched 401(k) in the US or other retirement account if elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8271c5f5c72a8011814eda10ffe04a2", "text": "Canadian here: the US is our biggest customer, so we were impacted economically. I expected that within a year or two of the US housing collapse, we would also be hit, but something else happened: when the US dropped interest rates like a stone, we were also forced to drop interest rates. This meant that suddenly, money was being handed out for very very cheap, so cheap it was almost free if you had a decent job and good credit. The housing market here paused for a brief moment, and then continued climbing. It never stopped until some new rules were implemented, aimed mostly at foreign buyers and investors, and put in place this year. It appears however that this current drop in prices may be a temporary dip. The average cost of a home in Toronto is still around $1m CAD, and our real estate is still among the most expensive in the world if you look at how much we pay compared to our incomes. In some places, houses have basically tripled over the past decade. My point here is that Canadian home owners were not impacted negatively by the 2008 crisis. In fact, once the free money started flowing and prices went up accordingly, Canadian home owners were enriched as a direct result of the 2008 US housing crisis. The situation is clearly unsustainable, and the market is irrational. It's easy to say that we are in a bubble but it is impossible to tell when it will crash. In Canada, it's harder to walk away from mortgage debt; if you're underwater on your home, and the bank forecloses on you and sells the house for less than you owe, you still owe the bank the remainder of the money (in most provinces).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c611163c0981828fd6c9f06663c38bf4	Should I open a credit card when I turn 18 just to start a credit score?	[ { "docid": "f3075b259cb4f23c55ecb99c138aff09", "text": "Yes, it is a very good idea to start your credit history early. It sounds like you have a good understanding of the appropriate use of credit, as a substitute for cash rather than a supplement to income. As long as you keep your expenses under control and pay off your card each month, I see no problems with the idea. Try to find a card with no annual fees, a low interest rate if possible (which will be difficult at your age), and with some form of rewards such as cash back. Look for a reputable issuing bank, and keep the account open even after you get a new card down the road. Your credit score is positively correlated with having an account open for a long time, having a good credit usage to credit limit ratio, and having accounts in good standing and paid on time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13a0e39315b53b0fd86165869dc586b9", "text": "The length of time you have established credit does improve your credit score in the long run. As long as you can avoid paying interest, you might see if you can get a card with cash back rewards. I have one from Citi that sends me a $50 check every so often when I have enough rewards built up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7cbcdb950e3d7d98704510e40c5d6cb", "text": "Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments. So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39aa9172cca72e1bd3023423e442c419", "text": "Not only should you do this, you should tell your friends to do it too. Especially if a parent comes in to the bank with the child, banks fall over themselves to provide a card to someone whose only income is allowance. Really. Later, if you're 21 and your car broke and you don't get paid for another 11 days, NOBODY will lend you the money (or those money mart places that charge 300% a year will) to fix it. Never mind score (and yes for sure having a good score will be a result, and a good one) just having the card for emergencies makes all the difference to your early twenties. My kids have several friends who now can't get credit cards (some are students, some are underemployed) and end up missing paid days of work due to car troubles they can't pay to fix, or using those payday lenders, or other things that keep you poor. Get one while you can. Using it sensibly means you will have a great credit score in a decade or so, but just plain having it is worth more than you can know if you're not 18 yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2548412c71407b02dd63b488ad8538f5", "text": "No, don't open a credit card. Get used to paying cash for everything from the beginning. The best situation you can be in is not to have any credit. When it comes time to buy a house, put down %30 percent and your 0 credit score won't matter. This will keep you within your means, and, with governments gathering more and more data, help preserve your anonimity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8ff59ea2c23ffa7b310d9932d2fd828", "text": "\"I also feel it's important to NOT get a credit card. I'm in my mid 30's and have had credit cards since I was 20, as has everyone I know. Every single one of those people, with the exception of my dad, is currently carrying some amount of credit card debt - almost always in the thousands of dollars. Here is the essential problem with credit cards. Everyone sets out with good intentions, to use the credit card like a debit card, and pay charges off before interest accrues. However, almost no-one has the discipline to remember to do this, and a balance quickly builds up on the card. Also, it's extremely easy to prioritize other bill payments before credit card payments, resulting in a balance building up on the card. It's almost magical how quickly a balance will build up on a credit card. Ultimately, they are simply too convenient, too tempting for most human beings. The world, and especially the North American world, is in a massive debt crisis. It is very easy to borrow money these days, and our culture is at the point where \"\"buy now pay later\"\" is an accepted practice. Now that I have young children, I will be teaching them the golden rule of \"\"don't buy something until you have cash to pay for it in full!\"\" It sounds like an over simplification but this one rule will save you an incredible amount of financial grief over time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b18fb5a8c31d7f4df58b2b5e06a885d", "text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb64b9cb7a7d5e5c50146c99df93de65", "text": "Assuming I only use it to buy things I can afford (which I trust myself to do), essentially treating it as a debit card, is this a good idea? This is definitely a good idea. From my own experience, before I got my first credit card through my local bank (age 18), I tired to apply for a card that has cash back rewards and was rejected because I didn't have any credit history. After I had the card from my bank for 6 months, I applied for this Capital One card that I've had ever since.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7afccda4f53df1e4510720d6f68014f", "text": "\"I want to recommend an exercise: Find all the people nearby who you can talk to in less than 24 hours about credit cards: Your family, whoever lives with you, and friends. Now, ask each of them \"\"what's the worst situation you've gotten yourself into with a credit card?\"\" Personally, the ratio of people who I asked who had credit cards to the ratio of people with horror stories about how credit cards screwed up their credit was nearly 1:1. Pretty much, only one of them had managed to avoid the trap that credit cards created (that sole exception had worked for the government at a high paying job and was now retired with adult children and a lucrative pension). Because it's trivially easy over-extend yourself, as a result of how credit cards work (if you had the cash at any second, you would have no need for the credit). But do your own straw poll, and then see what the experience of people around you has been. And if there's a lot more bad than good out there, then ask yourself \"\"am I somehow more fiscally responsible than all of these people?\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30896bb83843311d354c67952e993188", "text": "This is a good idea, but it will barely affect your credit score at all. Credit cards, while a good tool to use for giving a minor boost to your credit score and for purchasing things while also building up rewards with those purchases, aren't very good for building credit. This is because when banks calculate your credit report, they look at your long-term credit history, and weigh larger, longer-term debt much higher than short-term debt that you pay off right away. While having your credit card is better than nothing, it's a relatively small drop in the pond when it comes to credit. I would still recommend getting a credit card though - it will, if you haven't already started paying off a debt like a student or car loan, give you a credit identity and rewards depending on the credit card you choose. But if you do, do not ever let yourself fall into delinquency. Failing to pay off loans will damage your credit score. So if you do plan to get a credit card, it is much better to do as you've said and pay it all off as soon as possible. Edit: In addition to the above, using a credit card has the added benefit of having greater security over Debit cards, and ensures that your own money won't be stolen (though you will still have to report a fraudulent charge).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fac01d1006d45dcdf9becb6644681dd2", "text": "Definitely not. Credit cards only exist to suck you into the soulless corporate system. What you want to remember here is that you can't trust banks, so you'll want to convert all your savings into some durable asset, say, bitcoins for example, and then hoard them like Smaug until after the Fall.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "63248a355bcd65af62550a6567c3f754", "text": "My first thought is get a Capital One Secured Card. Use it for small things and pay it all off when you get paid. It will build your credit and after six months of solid use your credit limit can go up and you can be eligible for a better non-secured card (not that you need to get one). It's great for starting or rebuilding credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28d8fb25f927be0346124fa6b356d346", "text": "You could conceivably open a few accounts. For example, a bank account and a credit card account. Then the accounts will be older when evaluated for credit when you return. This would look better than opening fresh accounts later. But don't expect a big difference in score. And you'll be stuck with those accounts in the future, otherwise you lose the benefit. I wouldn't worry about maintaining balances now. You can wait until you come back. Occasional purchases may be helpful. What they really want to see is a regular and sustained use of accounts without missing payments or overextending. But if you're not going to be here, you can't really do that. Note that good credit scores are based on seven years of data, preferably a lot of it. Opening a few accounts can't substitute for that, even if you put balances on them. If you're not here, you won't be paying rent or utilities. You won't have a proven payment history on the most common accounts. If money were no object, you could do something like purchase a house or condo that you could rent out, utilities included. That would build up a payment history. But if money were no object, you probably wouldn't be worried about your credit score. It's more practical to just live normally and be sure that you always live within your means so that you don't experience negative credit events. You might think about why you want a good credit score. Is it to borrow a lot of money? You might be able to spend money to achieve that. Is it to save money on future borrowing? If it costs money now, how much will you save total? Opening accounts now that you won't really use until you return is about the only thing that you can do that won't cost you money. Perhaps put a balance on the bank account--at least you'll get that money back some day. Maintaining a balance on the credit cards would cost you money in interest charges, and you don't really benefit from an improved credit score until you use your credit. So the interest fees aren't really buying you anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36ddc2dc68b1162f8dc928fe970e3625", "text": "Absolutely. It's the way credit is calculated. The most important things here are credit utilization (how much of your open credit you're using, the less the better for your score) and and length of open credit. The longer you've had a credit card, the more it helps your score. If you use your card and pay it off before the bill comes, the credit card company still knows you're using the card and won't close it. I recommend you download credit karma so you can track your score and learn more about how credit is calculated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c9e775e3cbdb0666196bc0c97ef20bf", "text": "My son who is now 21 has never needed me to cosign on a loan for him and I did not need to establish any sort of credit rating for him to establish his own credit. One thing I would suggest is ditch the bank and use a credit union. I have used one for many years and opened an account there for my son as soon as he got his first job. He was able to get a debit card to start which doesn't build credit score but establishes his account work the credit union. He was able to get his first credit card through the same credit union without falling work the bureaucratic BS that comes with dealing with a large bank. His interest rate may be a bit higher due to his lack of credit score initially but because we taught him about finance it isn't really relevant because he doesn't carry a balance. He has also been able to get a student loan without needing a cosigner so he can attend college. The idea that one needs to have a credit score established before being an adult is a fallacy. Like my son, I started my credit on my own and have never needed a cosigner whether it was my first credit card at 17 (the credit union probably shouldn't have done that since i wasn't old enough to be legally bound), my first car at 18 or my first home at 22. For both my son and I, knowing how to use credit responsibly was far more valuable than having a credit score early. Before your children are 18 opening credit accounts with them as the primary account holder can be problematic because they aren't old enough to be legally liable for the debt. Using them as a cosigner is even more problematic for the same reason. Each financial institution will have their own rules and I certainly don't know them all. For what you are proposing I would suggest a small line of credit with a credit union. Being small and locally controlled you will probably find that you have the best luck there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57df0258a0afb33df7402a40ec2fc121", "text": "In general, minors cannot enter into legally binding contracts -- which is what credit accounts are -- so an individually held card is probably not an option for you right now. You will not be approved for a credit card because you are minor. The only option credit card wise for you is for your parents to add you on as an authorized user onto their accounts. The upside is that you and your parents can work out a monthly payment for the amount you spend on your equipment, the downside is that if your parents don't pay their credit card bill, your credit score/report can be negatively affected. (This also depends on the bank, however, all the banks I bank with report monthly payment activities on authorized users' credit reports as well. There might be a bank that doesn't.) In terms of credit cards, there is nothing you can do. What you could do as the comments have suggested is either save up money for the equipment you want, or buy something cheaper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5125c60090eb9d00dda6f03f165512d5", "text": "Please do not conflate number of credit cards with amount of debt. Consider two scenarios, The latter scenario yields much better credit scoring. Many recommendation sources suggest the following, Although your credit score seems very important, it is only important when you have financial interactions (such as applying for credit or services) where the other party makes decisions based upon the score. You should only obtain loans and credit when you want and it makes sense based upon your needs; choosing to live your life to serve credit scoring agencies may not be your happy place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3fcbad362ce5138359e0b7103fc7650", "text": "\"The comments section to Dilip's reply is overflowing. First - the OP (Graphth) is correct in that credit scoring has become a game. A series of data points that predicts default probability, but of course, offers little chance to explain why you applied for 3 loans (all refinancing to save money on home or rentals) got new credit cards (to get better rewards) and have your average time with accounts drop like a rock (well, I canceled the old cards). The data doesn't dig that deep. To discuss the \"\"Spend More With Plastic?\"\" phenomenon - I have no skin in the game, I don't sell credit card services. So if the answer is yes, you spend more with cards, I'll accept that. Here's my issue - The studies are all contrived. Give college students $10 cash and $10 gift cards and send them into the cafeteria. Cute, but it produces no meaningful data. I can tell you that when I give my 13yr old $20 cash, it gets spent very wisely. A $20 Starbucks card, and she's treating friends and family to lattes. No study needed, the result is immediate and obvious. Any study worth looking at would first separate the population into two groups, those who pay in full each month and those who carry a balance. Then these two groups would need to be subdivided to study their behavior if they went all cash. Not a simply survey, and not cheap to get a study of the number of people you need for meaningful data. I've read quotes where The David claimed that card users spend 10% more than cash users. While I accept that Graphth's concern is valid, that he may spend more with cards than cash, there is no study (that I can find) which correlates to a percentage result as all studies appear to be contrived with small amounts to spend. As far as playing the game goes - I can charge gas, my cable bill, and a few other things whose dollar amounts can't change regardless. (Unless you're convinced I'll gas up and go joy-riding) Last - I'd love to see any link in the comments to a meaningful study. Quotes where conclusions are stated but no data or methodology don't add much to the discussion. Edit - Do You Spend More with Cash or Credit? is an article by a fellow Personal Finance Blogger. His conclusion is subjective of course, but along the same path that I'm on with this analysis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e0b9a2e9015aeb08e040b219618558b", "text": "In the US, money talks and bullshit walks. You can skip any credit history requirement if you demonstrate your ability to pay in a very obvious way. Credit history is just a standardized way of weeding out people that cannot reliably pay, instead of having to listen to an individual's excuses about how the bank overdrafted their account five times while they were waiting for their friend to pay them back for bubble gum. If you can show up with a wad of cash, you can get the car, or the apartment, or the bank account without the troubles of everyone else. But you can begin building credit with a secured credit card pretty easily. This will be useful for things like utilities and sometimes jobs. Also, banks won't be opposed to giving you credit if you have a lot of money in an account with them. You should be able to maintain an exemption from all socioeconomic problems in the United States, solely due to your experience with money and assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8290b45510ae141611f2fedd0f045fc", "text": "\"Two factors that positively your credit score are the number of open accounts you have in good standing, and the average age of the accounts. The more accounts you have in good standing, the more likely you seem to pay back what you borrow from new creditors. The older the average age of the accounts, the more you seem like an experienced borrower who has had many years of successful credit activity. Closing them would lower the total number of accounts in good standing you have, and would also likely lower the average account age (unless you've recently opened them). To \"\"simplify the number of cards you have\"\", pick the one or two you would consider cancelling (worst rewards/benefits, highest yearly fee, etc.) and just don't keep them in your wallet anymore. You don't have to worry about paying them off every month (because you don't buy anything with them) and you still get the credit score benefits of having the accounts open.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc96aae030cc1ee5f74d3b74a1e85dcd", "text": "Other answers here cover some of the basics, but this is also a great time to start establishing a credit history and developing good financial habits to carry throughout your life. In addition to opening a free checking account with the local credit union, establish an overdraft line of credit on that account. Never close this account or this line of credit as it will work to increase the average age of your accounts when you apply for credit later in life. If you are disciplined with your use of credit cards, you may also want to apply for a low limit credit card through the same credit union for the same purpose as above. Never carry a balance on this card, but make minor purchases with it each month, never more than 20% of the balance, maybe just buy gas with it. Start tracking all of your spending and make a monthly budget. There are a lot of online tools that make this very easy. Establishing the habit now will help you make informed financial decisions in the future. Open a Roth IRA and put at least 10% of your money away for retirement. In the future your income may increase enough to put you in the 25% tax bracket. If that ever happens, open a Regular IRA and put the money there instead. Also when you have employers that offer 401k matching do the same thing with a Roth 401k account. Keep your money invested in a low cost index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca4efa920bc59cb71bee8163139124a8", "text": "I think you are interpreting their recommended numbers incorrectly. They are not suggesting that you get 13-21 credit cards, they are saying that your score could get 13-21 points higher based on having a large number of credit cards and loans. Unfortunately, the exact formula for calculating your credit score is not known, so its hard to directly answer the question. But I wouldn't go opening 22+ credit cards just to get this part of the number higher!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cae8e2b9cd5029a7a8833398c4085bf", "text": "You should. The impact on the credit score is small, and probably not worth the money of the annual fee. I would only change that if you plan to get a mortgage or car loan the next month - then wait until afterwards.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0b07b64c082a6a9a6aad727d821d2a4", "text": "For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8a0ea3b3dde6eb528f6510f15113ddb", "text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac6c8b4a19615ff7b2de20577028940c", "text": "A credit card can be a long running line of credit that will help to boost your FICO score. However if you have student loans, a mortgage, or car payments those will work just as well. If you ever get to the point where you don't have any recent lines of credit, this may eventually end up hurting your score, but until then you really don't need any extras.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
485eb69063ac5fd12719f00708f6fe15	Beginning investment	[ { "docid": "66a8d2bd6df7b51a688f52da91c955b0", "text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18b615ce9a8e81a7245a09b06c0483ee", "text": "The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dae5a63b73f122a7449fcee23db1cf7", "text": "I am a huge fan of jim Cramer and while you may not get CNBC in Australia you can prolly catch jim cramers podcasts If you have an iPod or iPhone which really will help your financial literacy a bit. Here's my advice . Set up a IRA or tax advantaged accounts if they exist in Australia (sorry I only know usa markets really well). Then you can pick investments to go in there or in a different investment account. I am a huge fan of index funds in particular Etf index funds because they are still very liquid. I prefer the free or no commission funds by Charles scwabb but vanguard is also very good or maybe even better. A few great funds are the vanguard total stock market fund (it invests in every company in the world) and any fund that mirrors the s&p 500 or the Russell 2000 midcap. Another good idea just to make room to save money is make a budget with your wife. I like the other post about planning in reverse . Setting up a budget to see your expenses and then make automatic pay dedications that go into savings or different accounts for savings.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f23416c0ae6956ee2796889c0c53fa72", "text": "Fahad, in finance we make a distinction between investments that tend to grow in value and assets that hold value. Investments that grow in value are generally related to investing in well-thought out businesses. Investments can be done in retirement accounts through stocks and bonds but also owning part of a business directly. Good investments make more and more money off the money you put in. Common examples of assets include gold and other non-productive property like real-estate you don't rent or cars. You can even have some assets in your retirement account as many would argue government bonds behave like assets. All of these things tend to (more or less) go up in value as the cost of everything goes up in value, but don't tend to make you any excess money in the long run. There is certainly a place for both investments and assets. Especially as a young person it is good to lean toward investments as you likely have a lot of time for the money to grow as you get older. As RonJohn suggests, in the United States this is fairly easy as retirement accounts are common there is a long history of stable financial law even in crises. Pakistan's institutions are fairly stable and improving but still assets and investments of all types can be riskier. So, I recommend taking your father's advice... partially. Having some assets are good in riskier situations, but good investments are generally the way to grow comfortably wealthy. A good mix of the two is the way to grow wealthy slowly while protecting yourself from risk. You, your father and your neighbors know you local situation better than I, who has only visited a number of Pakistan's neighboring countries, so I can't really give more detailed advice but hopefully this gets you started.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "679be605950dfa4c18994648a37208cd", "text": "So, first -- good job on making a thorough checklist of things to look into. And onto your questions -- is this a worthwhile process? Even independent of specific investing goals, learning how to research is valuable. If you decided to forgo investing in stocks directly, and chose to only invest in index funds, the same type of research skills would be useful. (Not to mention that such discipline would come in handy in other fields as well.) What other 80/20 'low hanging fruit' knowledge have I missed? While it may not count as 'low hanging fruit', one thing that stands out to me is there's no mention of what competition a company has in its field. For example, a company may be doing well today, but you may see signs that it's consistently losing ground to its competition. While that alone may not dissuade you from investing, it may give you something to consider. Is what I've got so far any good? or am I totally missing the point. Your cheat sheet seems pretty good to me. But a lot depends on what your goals are. If you're doing this solely for your education and experience, I would say you've done well. If you're looking to invest in a company that is involved in a field you're passionate about, you're on the right track. But you should probably consider expanding your cheat sheet to include things that are not 'low hanging fruit' but still matter to you. However, I'd echo the comments that have already been made and suggest that if this is for retirement investments, take the skills you've developed in creating your cheat sheet and apply that work towards finding a set of index funds that meet your criteria. Otherwise happy hunting!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6afaace264db953883616071a4e578d", "text": "This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34ff158b6ef5069454476b94d3c6f49b", "text": "Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8bff6260a6a7c709a5caed50d58fbe1e", "text": "The total number of shares on April 1st is 100 + 180 + 275 = 555. The price on April 1st is required. The current price is stated as $2, but $2 * 555 = $1110 and the current fund values is stated as $1500. Opting to take the current value as $1500, the price on April 1st can be calculated as $1500/555 = $2.7027. The amounts invested as number of shares x share price are: (Note these investment amounts do not match the example scenario's investment amounts, presumably because the example numbers are just made up.) The monthly returns can be calculated: The current values for each investor as invested amount x returns are: Checking the total:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecf51c613d27aef311ab2aa2a9c16077", "text": "The fund prospectus is a good place to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1328d512f1bbce05712bbb70484c3909", "text": "The standard advice is to have 3-6 months worth of expenses saved up in a highly liquid savings or money market account. After you have that saved you could look to start investing. I would recommend reading the bogleheads investment wiki (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started). Even if you aren't planning on following the bogle head's way of passive investing it will give you a lot of good info on options available to you to start investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54ce4f503afc151425f30f55a31e5e08", "text": "You are smart to read books to better inform yourself of the investment process. I recommend reading some of the passive investment classics before focusing on active investment books: If you still feel like you can generate after-tax / after-expenses alpha (returns in excess of the market returns), take a shot at some active investing. If you actively invest, I recommend the Core & Satellite approach: invest most of your money in a well diversified basket of stocks via index funds and actively manage a small portion of your account. Carefully track the expenses and returns of the active portion of your account and see if you are one of the lucky few that can generate excess returns. To truly understand a text like The Intelligent Investor, you need to understand finance and accounting. For example, the price to earnings ratio is the equity value of an enterprise (total shares outstanding times price per share) divided by the earnings of the business. At a high level, earnings are just revenue, less COGS, less operating expenses, less taxes and interest. Earnings depend on a company's revenue recognition, inventory accounting methods (FIFO, LIFO), purchase price allocations from acquisitions, etc. If you don't have a business degree / business background, I don't think books are going to provide you with the requisite knowledge (unless you have the discipline to read textbooks). I learned these concepts by completing the Chartered Financial Analyst program.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c1e38777f47d8af6a0319a751443f2a", "text": "If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d53eb6e97cd4e36144f3f6406937ca0", "text": "Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended. However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "164f357b28487a92dd220457fa1bda24", "text": "\"I tell you how I started as an investor: read the writings of probably the best investor of the history and become familiarized with it: Warren Buffett. I highly recommend \"\"The Essays of Warren Buffett\"\", where he provides a wise insight on how a company generates value, and his investment philosophy. You won't regret it! And also, specially in finance, don't follow the advice from people that you don't know, like me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "370145bbca8c2860511a87564b212acc", "text": "I don't like your strategy. Don't wait. Open an investment account today with a low cost providers and put those funds into a low cost investment that represents as much of the market as you can find. I am going to start by assuming you are a really smart person. With that assumption I am going to assume you can see details and trends and read into the lines. As a computer programmer I am going to assume you are pretty task oriented, and that you look for optimal solutions. Now I am going to ask you to step back. You are clearly very good at managing your money, but I believe you are over-thinking your opportunity. Reading your question, you need a starting place (and some managed expectations), so here is your plan: Now that you have a personal retirement account (IRA, Roth IRA, MyRA?) and perhaps a 401(k) (or equivalent) at work, you can start to select which investments go into that account. I know that was your question, but things you said in your question made me wonder if you had all of that clear in your head. The key point here is don't wait. You won't be able to time the market; certainly not consistently. Get in NOW and stay in. You adjust your investments based on your risk tolerance as you age, and you adjust your investments based on your wealth and needs. But get in NOW. Over the course of 40 years you are likely to be working, sometimes the market will be up, and sometimes the market will be down; but keep buying in. Because every day you are in, you money can grow; and over 40 years the chances that you will grow substantially is pretty high. No need to wait, start growing today. Things I didn't discuss but are important to you:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b2ee1ec448b87a1e6e61d1e910eee61", "text": "\"You can start investing with any amount. You can use the ShareBuilder account to purchase \"\"partial\"\" stocks through their automatic investment plan. Usually brokers don't sell parts of stock, and ShareBuilder is the only one allowing it IMHO using its own tricks. What they do basically is buy a stock and then divide it internally among several investors who bought it, while each of the investors doesn't really own it directly. That's perfect for investing small amounts and making first steps in investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7", "text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9175d6a35bb2a1f359699e4473e2b56", "text": "I don't want to get involved in trading chasing immediate profit That is the best part. There is an answer in the other question, where a guy only invested in small amounts and had a big sum by the time he retired. There is good logic in the answer. If you put in lump sum in a single stroke you will get at a single price. But if you distribute it over a time, you will get opportunities to buy at favorable prices, because that is an inherent behavior of stocks. They inherently go up and down, don't remain stable. Stock markets are for everybody rich or poor as long as you have money, doesn't matter in millions or hundreds, to invest and you select stocks with proper research and with a long term view. Investment should always start in small amounts before you graduate to investing in bigger amounts. Gives you ample time to learn. Where do I go to do this ? To a bank ? To the company, most probably a brokerage firm. Any place to your liking. Check how much they charge for brokerage, annual charges and what all services they provide. Compare them online on what services you require, not what they provide ? Ask friends and colleagues and get their opinions. It is better to get firsthand knowledge about the products. Can the company I'm investing to be abroad? At the moment stay away from it, unless you are sure about it because you are starting. Can try buying ADRs, like in US. This is an option in UK. But they come with inherent risk. How much do you know about the country where the company does its business ? Will I be subject to some fees I must care about after I buy a stock? Yes, capital gains tax will be levied and stamp duties and all.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7dc4ed41efe983dc31d216aa9c08d032	Separated spouse filed for SNAP benefits as single. Does this affect ability to file taxes jointly?	[ { "docid": "482811e265fa62e38b63df1f61843a8d", "text": "\"The IRS isn't going to care how you filed for benefits - they're effectively the high man on the totem pole. The agency that administers the SNAP program is the one who might care. File the 1040 correctly, and then deal with SNAP as you note. Do deal with SNAP, though; otherwise they might be in trouble if SNAP notices the discrepancy in an audit of their paperwork. Further, SNAP doesn't necessarily care here either. SNAP defines a household as the people who live together in a house and share expenses; a separated couple who neither shared expenses nor lived together would not be treated as a single household, and thus one or both would separately qualify. See this Geeks on Finance article or this Federal SNAP page for more details; and ask the state program administrator. It may well be that this has no impact for him/her. The details are complicated though, particularly when it comes to joint assets (which may still be joint even if they're otherwise separated), so look it over in detail, and talk to the agency to attempt to correct any issues. Note that depending on the exact circumstances, your friend might have another option other than Married Filing Jointly. If the following are true: Then she may file as \"\"Head of Household\"\", and her (soon-to-be) ex would file as \"\"Married Filing Separately\"\", unless s/he also has dependents which would separately allow filing as Head of Household. See the IRS document on Filing Status for more details, and consider consulting a tax advisor, particularly if she qualifies to consult one for free due to lower income.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b29218638d78e9b10227d3fdda3655af", "text": "\"I am very late to this forum and post - but will just respond that I am a sole proprietor, who was just audited by the IRS for 2009, and this is one of the items that they disallowed. My husband lost his job in 2008, I was unable to get health insurance on my own due to pre-existing ( not) conditions and so we had to stay on the Cobra system. None of the cost was funded by the employer and so I took it as a SE HI deduction on Line 29. It was disallowed and unfortunately, due to AGI limits, I get nothing by taking it on Sch. A. The auditor made it very clear that if the plan was not in my name, or the company's name, I could not take the deduction above the line. In his words, \"\"it's not fair, but it is the law!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e477d83f05f0972355b5b26f40f70211", "text": "You are going to have to talk to your benefits office to understand all the deadlines and rules for their program. While the IRS does enforce the law, there are enough local variations in the rules to make it quite complex. The first thing you need to know is the source of the funds: the employer or the employee. Then you need to know the deadline for applying for the program, how you specify the monthly expenses in advance, and when the funds expire. The way you pay for commuting and parking makes a difference: per-ride on the subway, van pool, monthly transit pass; daily parking at a lot, monthly hang tag, or at meter; These options determine how to expend the funds and how they give you the funds. You can't get money for missed months. So you need to know what you have to do in October to get money for November.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001777fad85611bd1aebbaf3796d70df", "text": "To clarify that legality of this (for those that question it), this is directly from IRS Publication 926 (2014) (for household employees): If you prefer to pay your employee's social security and Medicare taxes from your own funds, do not withhold them from your employee's wages. The social security and Medicare taxes you pay to cover your employee's share must be included in the employee's wages for income tax purposes. However, they are not counted as social security and Medicare wages or as federal unemployment (FUTA) wages. I am sorry this does not answer your question entirely, but it does verify that you can do this. UPDATE: I have finally found a direct answer to your question! I found it here: http://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040sh/ar01.html Form W-2 and Form W-3 If you file one or more Forms W-2, you must also file Form W-3. You must report both cash and noncash wages in box 1, as well as tips and other compensation. The completed Forms W-2 and W-3 in the example (in these instructions) show how the entries are made. For detailed information on preparing these forms, see the General Instructions for Forms W-2 and W-3. Employee's portion of taxes paid by employer. If you paid all of your employee's share of social security and Medicare taxes, without deducting the amounts from the employee's pay, the employee's wages are increased by the amount of that tax for income tax withholding purposes. Follow steps 1 through 3 below. (See the example in these instructions.) Enter the amounts you paid on your employee's behalf in boxes 4 and 6 (do not include your share of these taxes). Add the amounts in boxes 3, 4, and 6. (However, if box 5 is greater than box 3, then add the amounts in boxes 4, 5, and 6.) Enter the total in box 1.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e2b8e1b662b20dea5898333403d78e0", "text": "\"Depending on what your other deductions are and the amount you are wanting to donate, you can save some money by \"\"batching\"\" deductions into every other year. For example, if you are single in 2015, the standard deduction is $6,300. This means the first $6,300 in deductions you have basically don't \"\"matter\"\" because the standard deduction is larger. You only \"\"count\"\" itemized deductions greater than $6,300. Let's imagine you are donating $10k in 2015 and 2016 and have no other itemized deductions. If you donate in both years, you basically get a net deduction of ($10,000 - $6,300) * 2 = $7,400 over the standard deduction. However, if you donate $10k in 2015 and the next $10k on Dec31, 2015, then you now have donated $20k in 2015 and $0k in 2016. This affects your taxes because you now get ($20,000 - $6,300) = $13,700 in \"\"bonus\"\" deductions. You still get the full $6,300 standard deduction in 2016 as well. This can be a significant impact on your taxes (especially if you are married as the married deduction is double the single or have minimal other itemizable deductions)..\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1318010b545beed42ab41bb2b647d1b5", "text": "A couple things. First of all, most people's MAIN source of income is from their job, but they have others, such as bank interest, stock dividends, etc. So that income has to be reported with their wage income. The second thing is that most people have deductions NOT connected with their job. These deductions reduce income (and generate refunds). So it's in their interest to file.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39140129163ccabe75a9d6dcb033e4c4", "text": "First, the SSN isn't an issue. She will need to apply for an ITIN together with tax filing, in order to file taxes as Married Filing Jointly anyway. I think you (or both of you in the joint case) probably qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, if you've been outside the US for almost the whole year, in which cases both of you should have all of your income excluded anyway, so I'm not sure why you're getting that one is better. As for Self-Employment Tax, I suspect that she doesn't have to pay it in either case, because there is a sentence in your linked page for Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident that says However, you may still be treated as a nonresident alien for the purpose of withholding Social Security and Medicare tax. and since Self-Employment Tax is just Social Security and Medicare tax in another form, she shouldn't have to pay it if treated as resident, if she didn't have to pay it as nonresident. From the law, I believe Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident is described in IRC 6013(g), which says the person is treated as a resident for the purposes of chapters 1 and 24, but self-employment tax is from chapter 2, so I don't think self-employment tax is affected by this election.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2908636544f419ba959a9b11775ca3", "text": "\"As littleadv says, Form W7 is the right one. Under \"\"Reason for applying\"\" you could select (e): Spouse of U.S. citizen/resident alien. See additional details in the form instructions. This would be an option after you are married. Note that the top of the form states in bold italics that \"\"An IRS individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) is for federal tax purposes only.\"\" It may be worth editing the question to reference your assertion that an ITIN can be used for credit card applications.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c68cedbd4aa170b06821aa99ccc65c1", "text": "\"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71553bbe7165042e132c4cb7dd7421b1", "text": "\"3) NOT to claim her as my dependent. No additional tax return (since she is NOT my dependent), but also no penalty. My end of year balance would be $0 No. Not claiming her as a dependent does not save you from being responsible for her penalty. You are responsible for her penalty if she is your dependent (i.e. she meets the conditions for being your dependent), regardless of whether you claim her on your tax return or not. If you have the option of claiming her or not, then she is your dependent, and you are responsible for her penalty. 26 CFR 1.5000A-1(c)(2)(i): For a month when a nonexempt individual does not have minimum essential coverage, if the nonexempt individual is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another individual for the other individual's taxable year including that month, the other individual is liable for the shared responsibility payment attributable to the dependent's lack of coverage. An individual is a dependent of a taxpayer for a taxable year if the individual satisfies the definition of dependent under section 152, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return for the taxable year. [...] Form 1040 instructions, Line 61: [...] If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61. [...] So you cannot check the box and must report exemptions for your sister, or report a shared responsibility payment. Form 8965 instructions, Definitions, \"\"Tax household\"\": For purposes of Form 8965, your tax household generally includes you, your spouse (if filing a joint return), and any individual you claim as a dependent on your tax return. It also generally includes each individual you can, but don't, claim as a dependent on your tax return. [...] Your sister is part of your tax household regardless of whether you claim her, and you must compute her shared responsibility payment for any months she did not have insurance and did not qualify for an exemption.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7691b04c045df57a892e781356f4004f", "text": "Washington State doesn't have a state income tax for individuals, so unless you've got a business there's nothing to file. Find out more on their website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f6be042e05c1e3e41ac07a983a02f85", "text": "You're on the right track, and yes, that small difference is subject to income taxes. Do you use a payroll service? I do the same thing and use my payroll software to tweak the salary until the paycheck is just a few dollars every month (we run payroll once a month), with the rest going to the 401(k) and payroll taxes. So we're rounding up just a bit just so there's an actual paycheck with a positive number, and a bit does get withheld for fed/state income tax. Also keep in mind you can make a company match. If your plan is a solo 401(k) with just you and your wife as the sole employees, consider the 25% match for both of you. The match is not subject to payroll taxes because it is a company expense. IRS web page: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/One-Participant-401(k)-Plans", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a9bcaa84bf501af4ebd583840d4264a", "text": "Your best bet is going to be contacting TaxAct directly for their information. If you do enter your spouses information and choose to purchase their deluxe product, I would think you might end up paying for the second efile. I have used their deluxe version for many years now, but choose it mostly because of the free state efiling and not for the ability to determine whether or not to file separately. In my case, it makes sense to file jointly and not file separately. The deluxe version allows you to portion out your deductions and see which method of filing gives you the lowest total tax bill. Here's the link directly to TaxAct's support: https://www.taxact.com/tsupport/support_request.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "355895b69526d03aa8b506b3138ca6b3", "text": "\"The author really glosses over the impact of changes pertaining to \"\"return to work\"\" requirements/qualification. [In Georgia, some recipient groups have been reduced by 60%](http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-news/more-will-have-work-keep-food-stamps/pu0Y9SASOVxc5QwEzJJLdJ/). I'd be cautious about celebrating this kind of report being connected to people rising out of poverty status. The more obvious conclusion is that the reductions owe more to people simply being excluded from SNAP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "326441a0a81ba1ba71dfc6fde4bb36b5", "text": "No, absolutely not. Income tax rates are marginal. The tax bracket's higher tax rate only applies to extra dollars over the threshold, not to dollars below it. The normal income tax does not have any cliffs where one extra dollar of income will cost more than one dollar in extra taxes. Moreover, you are ignoring the personal exemption and standard deduction. A gross salary of $72,000 is not the same as taxable income of $72,000. The deduction will generally be $12,200 and the exemptions will be $3,900 for you, your spouse, and any kids. So married-filing-jointly with the standard deduction will get an automatic $20,000 off of adjusted gross income when counting taxable income. So the appropriate taxable income is actually going to be more like $52,000. Note that getting your compensation package reshuffled may result in different tax treatment. But simply taking a smaller salary (rather than taking some compensation as stock options, health insurance, or fringe benefits), is not a money-saving move. Never do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de92e1a4ea311ce09e08ae3cb8f0d17f", "text": "Is it worth saving HSA funds until retirement? Yes Are there pros and cons from a tax perspective? Mostly pros. This has all of the benefits of an IRA, but if you use it for medical expenses then you get to use the money tax free on the other side. Retirement seems to be the time you are most likely to need money for medical expenses. So why wouldn't you want to start saving tax free to cover those expenses? The cons are similar to other tax advantaged retirement accounts. If you withdraw before retirement time for non-medical purposes, you will pay penalties, but if you withdraw at retirement time, you will pay the same taxes you would pay on an IRA. I should note that I put my money where my mouth is and I max out my contribution to my HSA every year.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
df7d20bfa79864c74e866749eb25692f	Can I negotiate a 0% transaction fee with my credit card company?	[ { "docid": "79a3d94523d48ba0fa0abea840e52887", "text": "\"TL;DR summary: 0% balance transfer offers and \"\"free checks usable anywhere\"\" rarely are a good deal for the customer. 0% rate balance transfer offers (and the checks usable anywhere including payment of taxes) come with a transaction fee because the credit card company is paying off the balance on the other card (or the tax or the electric bill) in the full amount of $X as stated on the other card statement or on the tax/electric bill). This is in contrast to a purchase transaction where if you buy something for $X, you pay the card company $X but the card company pays the merchant something less than $X$. (Of course, the merchant has jacked up the sale price of the item to pass on the charge to you.) Can you get the credit card company to waive the transaction fee? You can try asking them but it is unlikely that you will succeed if your credit score is good! I have seen balance transfer offers with no transaction fees made to people who have don't have good credit scores and are used to carrying a balance on their credit cards. I assume that the company making the offer knows that it will make up the transaction fee from future interest payments. A few other points to keep in mind with respect to using a 0% balance transfer offer to pay off a student loan (or anything else for that matter):\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92f4c219275bd0e3206320e64e2004e5", "text": "There is nothing called free lunch. The 2% fee indirectly covers the cost of funds and in effect would be a personal loan. Further the repayment period would typically be 3 months and roughly would translate into 7-9% loan depending of repayment schedule etc. There is no harm in trying to get the fee waived, however one thing can lead to another and they may even go and do an credit inquiry etc, so be cautious.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "90db26b89e8f2d04c74b31b6bfdaecf1", "text": "\"When you buy something with your credit card, the store pays a fee to the credit card company, typically a base fee of 15 to 50 cents plus 2 to 3% of the purchase. At least, that's what it was a few years back when I had a tiny business and I wanted to accept credit cards. Big chain stores pay less because they are \"\"buying in bulk\"\" and have negotiating power. Just because you aren't paying interest doesn't mean the credit card company isn't making money off of you. In fact if you pay your monthly bill promptly, they're probably making MORE off of you, because they're collecting 2 or 3% for a month or less, instead of the 1 to 2% per month that they can charge in interest. The only situation I know where you can get money from a credit card company for free is when they offer \"\"convenience checks\"\" or a balance transfer with no up-front fee. I get such an offer every now and then. I presume the credit card company does that for the same reason that stores give out free samples: they hope that if you try the card, you'll continue using it. To them, it's a marketing cost, no different than the cost of putting an ad on television.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "288aee3cde90d68f08dfb90dda778a6b", "text": "\"You are correct. Credit card companies charge the merchant for every transaction. But the merchant isn't necessarily going to give you discount for paying in cash. The idea is that by providing more payment options, they increase sales, covering the cost of the transaction fee. That said, some merchants require a minimum purchase for using a credit card, though this may be against the policies of some issuers in the U.S. (I have no idea about India.) Also correct. They hope that you'll carry a balance so that they can charge you interest on it. Some credit cards are setup to charge as many fees as they possibly can. These are typically those low limit cards that are marketed as \"\"good\"\" ways to build up your credit. Most are basically scams, in the fact that the fees are outrageous. Update regarding minimum purchases: Apparently, Visa is allowing minimum purchase requirements in the U.S. of $10 or less. However, it seems that MasterCard still does not allow them, for the most part. Moral of the story: research the credit card issuers' policies. A further update regarding minimum purchases: In the US, merchants will be allowed to require a minimum purchase of up to $10 for credit card transactions. (I am guessing that prompted the Visa rule change mentioned above.) More detail can be found here in this answer, along with a link to the text of the bill itself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2cca0a2454c5d2a973e3406de16af154", "text": "I used to do this all the time but it's more difficult now. Just a general warning that this probably isn't a good idea unless you're very responsible with your money because it's easy to get yourself in a bad position if you're not careful. You can get a new credit card that does balance transfers and request balance transfer checks from them. Then just use one of those balance transfer checks to mail a payment to the loan you want to transfer. Make sure your don't use the entire credit line as the credit card will have the balance transfer fee put on it as well. You used to be able to find credit cards with 0% balance transfer fee but I haven't seen one of those in ages. Chase Slate is the lowest I've seen recently at 2%. Alternately, if you have a lot of expenses every month then it's easy to find a credit card where all purchases are 0% interest for a year or more and use that to pay every possible expense for a few months and use the money you'd normally use to pay for those expenses to pay off the original loan. If you're regular monthly expenses are high enough you can pay off the original loan quickly and then pay on the credit card with no interest as normal. The banks are looking to hook you so make sure you pay them off before the zero percent runs out or make sure you know what happens after it does. Normally the rate sky rockets. Also, don't use that card for anything else. Credit card companies always put payments towards the lowest interest rate first so if you charge something that doesn't qualify for 0% then it will collect interest until you've paid off the entire 0% balance which will likely take a while and cost you a lot of money. If you have to pay a balance transfer fee then figure out if it's less then you would have paid if you continued paying interest on the original loan. Good luck. I hope it works out for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22d806018b64100f766b4cb2237967d7", "text": "That transaction probably cost the merchant $0.50 + 3% or close to $5. They should have refunded your credit card so they could have recouped some of the fees. (I imagine that's why big-box retailers like Home Depot always prefer to put it back on your card than give you store credit) Consider yourself lucky you made out with $0.15 this time. (Had they refunded your card, the 1% of $150 credit would have gone against next month's reward) Once upon a time folks were buying money from the US Mint by the tens of thousands $ range and receiving credit card rewards, then depositing the money to pay it off.. They figured that out and put a stop to it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e286a4b4698d26d497f4deb62bf8b825", "text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20b641f7a2a56ad95867db10dc9c2bc6", "text": "Intellectually and logically, it shouldn't bother me for a second to charge something for a buck. It's a losing proposition for the merchant, but their immediate business costs should be of little concern to me. (They're making a choice to sell that item to me at that price and by accepting that means of payment, right?) but the more I charge as opposed to paying cash, the more cash back I get. In my old-ish age, I've gotten a little softer and will pay cash more often for smaller amounts because I understand the business costs, but it's not a matter of caring what other people think. Accepting credit cards, or not, is a business decision. It's usually a good one. But with that decision come the rules, which up until about a year ago, meant that merchants couldn't set a minimum charge amount. Now that's not the case; merchant account providers can no longer demand that their merchant clients accept all charges, though they are allowed to set a minimum amount that is no lower than $10.00. In the end, it's a matter of how much you're willing to pay in order to influence people's thinking of you, because the business/financial benefits of doing one or the other are pretty clear.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4587dc621c938b566c4374e77c0e9888", "text": "Zero percent interest may sound great, but those deals often have extra margin built into the price to make up for it. If you see 0%, find it cheaper somewhere else and avoid the cloud over your head.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed92a26567b09642092447d525ece178", "text": "Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2fd4321bf828bffd3c5cb194d8081c6", "text": "Please don't waste any more time feeling bad for merchants for the charges they incur. I don't know who supported the lobby for this rule, but issuers no longer can demand that merchants accept all transactions (even the unprofitable ones). I discussed this at length on my blog. Merchants accept credit cards for one reason, and one reason only: it brings them more business. More people will buy, and on average they'll buy more. They used to take the occasional hit for someone buying a pack of gum with a credit card, but they don't have to anymore. The new law restricts issuers from imposing minimum transactions that are less than $10. I use a rewards card wherever possible. I get a cheaper price. In most cases I don't care what the merchant has to pay. They've already factored it into their prices. But if you are concerned, then as fennec points out in his comment, cash is the way to go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcf3e85b478a43834c0d63f867c7c6a3", "text": "\"Other answers didn't seem to cover it, but most \"\"0%\"\" bank loans (often offered to credit card holders in the form of balance transfer checks), aside from less-obvious fees like already-mentioned late fees, also charge an actual loan fee, typically 2-3% (or a minimum floor amount) - that was the deal with every single transfer 0% offer I ever saw from a bank. So, effectively, even if you pay off the loan perfectly, on time, and within 0% period, you STILL got a 3% loan and not 0% (assuming 0% period lasts 12 months which is often the case).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82df923388802b1ff77c26ddf148d76d", "text": "Remember that balance transfers are rarely fee free. As you state, there is a fee associated with the balance transfer. If your 0% rate is for 18 months and the fee is 3%, you are really paying 2% per year on the amount you transferred. The advantage is that you can redirect the debt you transferred is interest free and you can attack other debt with high interest on it. This can save you in interest fees and allow you to direct more of your money towards debt. The disadvantage is that your 0% interest will expire and become a much higher interest rate. Unless you pay off the transfer before the expiration, you will have to pay off the debt at the higher interest. How you decide to attack your debt reduction may need to factor in how long you expect to have debt and what other debt you have. Often times though, the savings in interest is less important than simplifying the number of debt accounts you have. The inspiration you receive from reducing your debt accounts is much more powerful. You realize reducing debt accounts allows you to actually see an end in sight and provides the recurring positive feedback that you are making progressing. This is why the advice to pay off your lowest balance credit cards first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12262c326568149698533a3c185be27c", "text": "If a shop offers 0% interest for purchase, someone is paying for it. e.g., If you buy a $X item at 0% interest for 12 months, you should be able to negotiate a lower cash price for that purchase. If the store is paying 3% to the lender, then techincally, you should be able to bring the price down by at least 2% to 3% if you pay cash upfront. I'm not sure how it works in other countries or other purchases, but I negotiated my car purchase for the dealer's low interest rate deal, and then re-negotiated with my preapproved loan. Saved a good chunk on that final price!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eae4250e2e3489c53d593d1700969d9", "text": "You know those perks/benefits that you don't want to give up? Those are funded by the fees you are trying to eliminate by paying cash. The credit card company makes money by interest, merchant fees, and other fees such a annual fees. They give you perks to generate more transactions, thus bringing in more merchant fees. For a small business they need to balance the fee of the credit card transaction with the knowledge that it is convenient for many customers. Some small businesses will set a minimum card transaction level. They do this because the small transaction on a credit card will be more expensive because the credit card company will charge 2% or 50 cents whichever is larger. Yes a business does figure the cost of the cards into their prices, but they can get ahead a little bit if some customers voluntarily forgo using the credit card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ebe8905a496ad4f1d60a1c4af85f0f24", "text": "\"Yes, merchants are charged. Visa/Mastercards charge 1 to 2%, of which some part goes to the Visa/MC and the rest to the issuing bank (if you have an HDFC Bank Visa card, HDFC bank is the issuing bank. And yes, you can get a discount from the merchant - while it probably isn't allowed by Visa/MC, some merchants still provide discounts for cash. But you won't get it at places like supermarkets or large brand retail. Late fees + charges can be huge. In multiple ways - first, they all seem to charge a late fee of Rs. 300-500 nowadays, plus service tax of 10%. Then, you will pay interest from the bill date to the eventual payment date. And further, any new purchases you make will attract interest from the day they are made (no \"\"interest-free\"\" period). Interest rates in India on CCs are over 3% a month, so you really must get rid of any open balances. I've written a longish piece on this at http://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/The-good-bad-ugly-credit-yahoofinancein-2903990423.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b39fc180a46b7189ca9b7aa3cdcda47f", "text": "I think either one would allow for lower pricing tiers as a merchant. I am at 2.5 on my main account. $0 to $3,000 2.9% + $0.30 $3.20 fee on a $100 sale $3,000+ to $10,000 2.5% + $0.30 $2.80 fee on a $100 sale $10,000+ 2.2% + $0.30 $2.50 fee on a $100 sale $100,000+ Call 1-888-818-3928", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c2a52335b8b2d21ee1544b5af96aa954	Need exit strategy for aging mother who owns aging rental properties, please	[ { "docid": "31885151bf8a8078618149c4d54eb664", "text": "\"I debated whether to put this in an answer or a comment, because I'm not sure that this can be answered usefully without a lot more information, which actually would then probably make it a candidate for closing as \"\"too localized\"\". At the very least we would need to know where (which jurisdiction) she is located in. So, speaking in a generic way, the options available as I see them are: Contact the mortgage companies and explain she can't continue to make payments. They will likely foreclose on the properties and if she still ends up owing money after that (if you are in the US this also depends on whether you are in a \"\"non-recourse\"\" state) then she could be declared bankrupt. This is rather the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and definitely not something to be undertaken lightly, but would at least wipe the slate clean and give her some degree of certainty about her situation. Look very carefully at the portfolio of properties and get some proper valuations done on them (depending on where she is located this may be free). Also do a careful analysis of the property sales and rental markets, to see whether property prices / rental rates are going up or down. Then decide on an individual basis whether each property is better kept or sold. You may be able to get discounts on fees if you sell multiple properties in one transaction. This option would require some cold hard analysis and decision making without letting yourselves get emotionally invested in the situation (difficult, I know). Depending on how long she has had the properties for and how she came to own them, it MIGHT be an option to pursue action against whoever advised her to acquire them. Clearly a large portfolio of decaying rental properties is not a suitable investment for a relatively elderly lady and if she only came by them relatively recently, on advice from an investment consultant or similar, you might have some redress there. Another option: could she live in one of the properties herself to reduce costs? If she owns her own home as well then she could sell that, live in the one of the rentals and use the money saved to finance the sale of the other rentals. Aside from these thoughts, one final piece of advice: don't get your own finances tangled up in hers (so don't take out a mortgage against your own property, for example). Obviously if you have the leeway to help her out of your budget then that is great, but I would restrict that to doing things like paying for grocery shopping or whatever. If she is heading for bankruptcy or other financial difficulties, it won't help if you are entangled too.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba", "text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0841a009c04fa1192c31304d59282b12", "text": "I'm afraid your best recourse may be legal. I don't know that internet is a necessity, but the court would frown upon anyone paying $4K for rent but not being able to afford to heat the water or turn the lights on. $48K a year net should be enough for her to at least keep the kids with these things. I don't know that you can educate her. Her issue is very deep-seated and far beyond a good financial planning type session.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f8bbe2d727be025e04e2f370bc0c887", "text": "\"If you're losing money or breaking even, you own a bad investment. The problem you have is that you are emotionally invested in your tenant. That isn't a bad thing in general but it's costing you money and, unless interest rates fall enough to justify a refi or property taxes go down in your area, that's kind of unlikely to change. Option #1 - Tell your wife that you are willing to accept a loss up to a certain level because of your long term relationship with your tenant. In a perfect world, the two of you would then discuss what the \"\"magic number\"\" would be where you got out and come to a compromise. For example, if you are comfortable losing up to $3,000 per year and she is unhappy with any loss, you may agree on selling the house when your losses climb to $1,500. In a less perfect world, it would cause an argument as she has already told you what she wants you to do. Option #2 - Raise the rent to the break even point. From what you've said, this will likely result in the loss of your tenant but you could then rent to someone else for significantly more. Option #3 - Sell the house. It's an investment property which means it's supposed to make money for you. It can do that very quickly by way of a sale and then it's no longer your problem. Option #4 - Sell the house to your tenant. You bought it for $50,000 and it's currently worth $150,000 (roughly). The problem you face is that property taxes have gone up and caused your mortgage to increase past your tenants ability to pay. My guess is, after 15 years, your payoff is somewhere in the high $20's to mid 30's assuming you got a 30 year loan and haven't refinanced. If you sell to her for say $75,000 (or even up to $90,000) you will still make a profit (wife is happy), she will get a mortgage she can afford and be able to stay in the house (you and the tenant are happy). Added bonus is that her property taxes would be lower (assuming a different rate for investment property in your area). I would discuss this at length with your wife as well before making such an offer. Option #5 - Get a property management company. As mentioned above, they will keep a percentage but will remove your emotions from the equation altogether and turn the situation into a winner. I don't know if your wife is right in saying you don't have the stomach for this, but I do think your heart is getting in the way in this particular situation. I get the feeling that if your tenant was 25 years old and had only been renting from you since last October, you would have no problem raising the rent to market levels at every renewal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ba0fe96cd66931d79d5747d12ed72b", "text": "If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df4449c7883b32e00a325fda321ca845", "text": "Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9e31264f9315abe930f2a44710544f2", "text": "\"There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a \"\"hard money\"\" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3153f161517c291ba3f59b50c82f271", "text": "If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7004ec040ee8fba64f99d4f90af7cf", "text": "\"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on \"\"find property management company Philadelphia\"\" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two). If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income. She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure. A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation. It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer. Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive. You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It's currently winter. Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing. If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes. Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first). Note that the kind of heat matters. You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd333f8f311aa1f844a430926d5d8df7", "text": "Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f844bc2e005a7a9e65887aa5f7ce63e9", "text": "I think what you have here is actually TWO agreements with your sister, and explicitly splitting it into two agreements will bring some clarity. The first is ownership of and responsibility for the building. The second is each of your personal use of a unit. Here's what you do: Treat ownership as if you're not living there. Split the down payment, the monthly mortgage, taxes and insurance, responsibility for cost of maintenance, etc. as well as the ownership and benefit of the building 70%/30%. Put all that in a contract. Treat it like a business. Second, lease those units to yourselves as if you were tenants. And yes, I means even with leases. This clarifies your responsibilities in a tenant capacity. More to the point, each of you pays rent at the going rate for the unit you occupy. If rent from all three units equals the monthly expenses, nothing more needs to be done. If they're more than the monthly expenses, then each of you receives that as business income on that 70%/30% breakdown. If those three rents are less than the monthly expenses, then each of you are required to make up the difference, again at 70%/30%. Note: if any of those expenses are utilities, then they should be apportioned via the rent -- just as you would if you'd rented out the whole building to strangers. 2nd note: all that can be done with ledger entries, rather than moving money around, first as rent, then as expense payments, then as payouts. But, I think it will benefit all of you to explicitly pay rent at first, to really clarify your dual relationship as joint owners and as tenants. Final note: I think this is a stickier situation than you may think it is. Familial relationships have been destroyed both by going into business together, and by renting to family members. You're doing both, and mixing the two to boot. I'm not saying it will destroy your relationship, but that there's a solid risk there. Relationship destruction comes from assumptions and vague verbal agreements. Therefor, for the sake of all of you, put everything in writing. A clear contract for the business side, and clear leases for the tenant side. It's not about trust -- it's about understood communication and positive agreement on all important points.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87330ef3eafc6becc1f1896d8c1fb54e", "text": "You can't calculate how many houses it will take. To do so you would have to know how much you can charge in rent compared to how much is costs to run that particular location. If the desirability of that location changes, so does the ability to rent the place, and so does the amount you can charge. It is possible to create a business in real estate that would allow you to generate retirement income. But you would be focusing all your income in your retirement years on one segment of the entire investment universe. The diversification would have to come from spreading the money through different types of real estate: condo, apartments, houses, commercial, warehouse, light industrial. You would even have to decide whether you want them all in one micro-market, or spread throughout a larger market, or an even wider area diversification. As your empire grew and you approached retirement age you would have to decide if you wanted to liquidate your investments to minimize risk. The long leases that provides stability of income would make it hard to sell quickly if the market in one area started to weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77dcc778863aba98f8b6cece6db553d4", "text": "Your mother has a problem that is typical for a woman with children. She is trying to help her children have a good life, by sacrificing to get them to a point where they can live comfortably on their own. Though she has a difficult situation now, much of the problems come from a very few choices by her and her children, and her situation can be fixed. Let me point out a few of the reasons why she has come to this point: My mother is a single mom... she is turning 50 this summer... she has about $60k in school loans from the college I attended... she has payments of $500/month ($10k) to my sisters college... she lives on her own in a 2 bedroom apartment... Mother's current 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $3131, 71%, too high, goal $2200) Lifestyle (total $150, low, she should have $500-900 to live her life) Financial (total $1350, 31%) Some observations and suggestions: Even though the $1625 rents seems high, your mom might enjoy her apartment and consider part of her rent ($300) a lifestyle choice (spending money for time), and the higher rent may make sense. But the rent is high for her income. Your mom should be spending more on food, and budget $200/month. Your mom should be saving money for investments and retirement. She should be putting 10% into savings ($440), plus any IRA/401K pretax savings. Your sister should be paying for her own college. She should take her own student loans, so that her mother can save for retirement. And since she only has $10K left, an alternative would be that you could loan her the money, and she could repay you when she graduates (you have money, as you loaned your mother $8K). You should be repaying the $500/month on the $60K student loan your mother took to help you get through college. You have benefited from the education, and the increased opportunity the college education has given you. Now is the time to accept responsibility and pay your debts. You could at least agree to split the expense with her, and were you paying even $300/month (leaving $200 for her), that would still fix her budget. Your mom should get a car that is paid for and reduce her transportation expenses, until the $350/month debt is resolved. She should resolve to spend no more than $300/month for a car, and with $100/month for insurance be under 10% for her vehicle. Since your mother lives in the US (NJ) she could avoid the $350/month debt payment though BK. But since there are other solutions she could exercise to resolve her problems, this is probably not needed. You mom could consider sharing her apartment to share expenses. Paying $1625 for an apartment for one person seems extravagant. She might enjoy sharing her apartment with a room-mate. That is about it. Once her children take responsibility for their lives, your mom will have a manageable budget, and less stress in her life. Mother's revised 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $2721, 62%, high, need to reduce by $500) Lifestyle (total $450, 10%, low) Financial (total $990, 23%) While you and your sister have these changes, Summary of changes: Some rent is lifestyle, reduced car loan by $200, sister pays her college $500, you pay your college $300, mom saves 10% of her income. Once your sister graduates and starts to repay you for your help with her college, you can take over paying the remainder of your loans, saving your mom an additional $200/month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c45066b63198035b22930c8c25a63c2", "text": "Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e3a37321270cf0bc94c808ddedb7135", "text": "If your sister paid rent, she was a tenant. There are laws to protect tenants, but those depend on what country, state, and city you live in. In most places in the US (maybe all), she was owed more than 2 days notice. Normally, the local housing authority could help her figure out what her rights are, but since this already happened, they may not be able to do much (depends on the local laws). It's worth asking them anyway. I don't know how partial ownership of the property would affect things if your sister was a partial owner. If the 30 year old will was the most recent document, then that's how the estate will be distributed. There are no laws in the US requiring a will to be fair. An executor's role is to carry out the will. Being an executor does not mean one can choose to unilaterally sell the property in the estate without permission of other heirs. You'll need to speak with a lawyer if you think they're breaking the will by selling property that you have partial ownership of. But since the sale is already done, reversing it would be slow and probably very expensive in legal fees. If it's a small estate, you'll have to judge whether a lawyer is worth the money and the family's animosity. Also, if the estate had debt, debt must be paid before property is distributed to the heirs, so that could also change what your sisters had to do. I'd suggest first asking your sisters to tell you about what they've done to execute the will, and what they do in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "233b7834ac5a15ab9d4b9fb522d80bd0", "text": "He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds? And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c2605f41f5e3bc938c6afdba4dd83d42	Is it OK to use a credit card on zero-interest to pay some other credit cards with higher-interest?	[ { "docid": "a0477c22075d15e0fd33267fe5a51012", "text": "\"Many people who do transfer a balance from one credit card to another have no clue as to what is going on and how credit cards work. If you transfer a balance from one credit card to another, you are charged a fee of anywhere from 3% upwards (subject to a minimum of $10 or so) up front. If Credit Card A has balance $1000 and you transfer it to Credit Card B which is offering no interest for a year on the transferred balance, you owe Credit Card B $1050 (say). In most cases, that $50 has to be paid off as part of the following month's bill. If you are carrying a revolving balance on Credit Card B, that $50 will typically be charged interest from the day of the transfer. Your monthly bill will not (necessarily) include that $1000 you owe for one year or six months or whatever the transfer agreement you accepted says. If you tend to pay anything less (even a penny) than full payment of each month's bill on Credit Card B, your partial payment will be applied to that $1000 first, and anything left over will be applied to the monthly balance. In short, if you don't pay in full each month, that $1000 will not be \"\"yours\"\" for a year; you may end up paying $50 interest for borrowing $1000 for just one or two months, and the rest of your balance is the gift that keeps on giving as the credit card company likes to say. UPDATE: This has changed slightly in the United States. Any amount paid over the minimum amount due is charged to the higher-interest balances. So in this case, if you had $1000 at a 0% promotional rate and a regular balance of $500, and the minimum payment was $100, and you paid $150, $100 would pay down the promotional balance, and the extra $50 would pay down the regular balance. About the only way to make the deal work in your favor is to Transfer money only if you have paid the full amount due on the last two statements before the date of the transfer and are not carrying a revolving balance. Check your monthly statements to make sure they show Finance Charge of 0.00. Many people have never seen such a sight and are unaware that this can be observed in nature. Make sure that you pay each month's bill in full (not the minimum monthly payment due) each month for a whole year after that. Make sure that the bill containing that $1000 (coming out a year after the transfer date) is also paid in full. Very many credit-card users do not have the financial discipline to go through with this program. That is why credit card companies love to push transfer balances on consumers: the whole thing is a cash cow for them where they in effect get to charge usurious rates of interest without running afoul of the law. $50 interest for a one-year loan of $1000 is pretty high at current rates; $50 interest for a two or three month loan where the customer does not even notice the screwing he is getting is called laughing all the way to the bank. See also the answers to this question\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589d5275ed384c541d389fc3a4b612d8", "text": "I am sure everyone is different, but it has helped me a great deal. I have had several card balances go up and the interest on those per month was more than $200 in just interest combined. I transferred the balances over to 0% for 15 months – with a fee, so the upfront cost was about $300. However, over the next 15 months at 0% I'm saving over $200 each month. Now I have the money to pay everything off at 14 months. I will not be paying any interest after that, and I cut up all of my cards so I won't rack up the bills with interest on them anymore. Now, if I can't buy it with a debit card or cash, I don't get it. My cards went up so high after remodeling a home so they were justified. It wasn't because I didn't pay attention to what I could afford. My brother, on the other hand, has trouble using credit cards properly and this doesn't work for him.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9be0004f5f7cefe478ac7e9dc888bd62", "text": "\"The short answer is no, it's probably not ok. The longer answer is, it might be, if you are very disciplined. You need to make sure that you have enough money to pay off the card after a year, and that you pay the card on time, every month, without exception. There may also be balance transfer or other fees that only make it worth while if the interest rate or balance on the other loan is high. The problem is most of these offers will raise your rates to very high levels (think 20% or more) if you are even one day late with one payment. Some of them also will back charge you interest starting from day one, although I have only seen this on store credit \"\"one year, same as cash\"\" type offers. In the end you need to balance the possible payoff against how much it will cost you if you do it wrong. Remember, the banks are not in the business of lending out free money. They wouldn't do this unless enough people didn't pay it back in one year for them to make a profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f641c267bde00c27d0e625200e270b6", "text": "\"The short answer is: it depends. The longer answer is that balance transfers are tricky, and often a bait-and-switch; they'll offer 0% interest, but charge a 3-4% \"\"fee\"\" (which isn't interest and is perfectly legal) on the amount transferred. If you transfer $5000, you now owe the new card company $5,200. Now, that could be fine with you; at an 18-20% APR on your old card you may have been charged that much in just one or two months, and by capitalizing this fee up front you lock in 0% for a year. However, there are other possible machinations behind the scenes. For instance, you may incur retroactive interest on the full balance if not paid off in the year (at 20% APR on $5000, that's an extra grand you will owe if there's even one dollar of the original transferred balance left in the account). Paying off the balance and thus avoiding these penalties has actually been made harder by the CARD Act, which required creditors to apply any payment made to the highest-interest portion of the balance first. As balance transfers are 0% they are the last on the list, so if you transfer a balance and then carry an additional balance you are setting yourself up for failure. You MUST have a zero-dollar balance for one month sometime during the year in order to be sure the balance transfer is paid off and no penalties will be incurred. That can be hard, because 5 grand is a lot to pay off. To pay off a $5000 balance in 12 months requires payments of $417. Miss one and you'll have to make it up over the remaining months. If you transferred a balance, you probably didn't have $420/mo to pay to the card in the first place. In summary, balance transfers can work, but you have to understand all of the terms and conditions, and what will happen should you violate any of them. If you don't understand what you're getting into, you could very well end up worse than you started.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79c5c99d9e28421bf322bf57bd7978c2", "text": "\"Here's the issue as I see it. The fact that one has high interest debt says a lot about the potential borrower. Odds are very good that person will not pay the zero card off before the rate expires, and will likely charge more along the way. I'd love to be able to say \"\"great idea, borrowing at a low rate to pay off a high rate card will be the first step to getting you all paid off\"\" but chances are in a year's time you will not be better off. You said you know a lot of people that have done this. Have they all been successful? It's possible, but I'd heed the warnings of those here and first think how you got into the credit card debt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a5c0c6c03ff7beba4df4dde569f0efe", "text": "\"I've done exactly what you are describing and it was a great move for me. A few years back I had two credit cards. One had a $6000 balance and a fairly high interest rate that I was making steady payments to (including interest). The other was actually tied to a HELOC (home equity line of credit) whose interest rate was fixed to \"\"prime\"\", which was very low at the time, I think my effective rate on the card was around 3%. So, I pulled out one of the \"\"cash advance checks\"\" from the HELOC account and paid off the $6000 balance. Then I started making my monthly payments against the balance on the HELOC, and paid it off a bit more quickly and with less overall money spent because I was paying way less interest. Another, similar, tactic is to find a card that doesn't charge fees for balance transfers and that has a 0% interest rate for the first 12 months on transferred balances. I am pretty sure they are out there. Open an account on that card, transfer the balance to it, and pay it down within 12 months. And, try not to use the card for anything else if you can help it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29fdf38ff4ab2c12206a69cea90ea65b", "text": "\"good vs \"\"bad\"\" debt in the context of that post. At least in the UK this can be a good tactic to reduce the cost of credit card debt. Some things to consider\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "eafcee4e844d3264b7139caa74e2ecd8", "text": "\"As others have said: unless you can find someone willing to make a zero-interest loan, the answer is no. If you can figure out how to turn a \"\"0% for first N months\"\" credit card offer onto a leveraged investment or something of that sort -- seems unlikely -- maybe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f320f4e22c600ae01c275f2a9a878236", "text": "Pay them off immediately. But, as I note in my article Too Little Debt?, a zero utilization is actually a negative hit. So you want to just use the cards to get over 1%. i.e. if the lines add to $38K, just charge say, gas and some groceries, $100/wk. Pay in full every month. It's the amount on the statement that counts, not the amount carried month to month accruing interest, which, I hope is zero for you from now on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5aaec0e08ae6e11cf53611b8828df2d5", "text": "No credit card company would ever give a card with either no credit limit or that was not in credit (for prepaid cards) because they would earn no money from it. The company's income is entirely derived from fees that they charge you for balances and interest on those balances so a 0 limit card would be worthless to them. Getting a prepaid card and letting the balance hit 0 might be a way around this but the fees that you will be charged , and will become a debt in your name, when the billing system tries to take the first paid month's cost from the card and fails will be exorbitant. They may go so far as dwarfing the actual cost but the one thing that they will certainly do is lower your credit rating so this is not a good idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e4de5ee34553d4e9d81d02d02bd3b5c", "text": "My card keeps a separate 'cash advance' limit, that's lower than the regular rate. I believe balance transfers also trigger that limit and (much higher) interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbff14d0604cfd236b9c40dcd9f54084", "text": "\"A credit card is basically a \"\"revolving\"\" loan, in which you're allowed to borrow up to a certain amount (the limit), and any time you borrow, you pay interest. If you were to borrow $100 to pay for something via a credit card, you'd have a $100 balance on the card. If you then pay $70 cash to the card, there would be $30 remaining. That $30 balance could accrue interest. The timing of that interest charge could vary. The 20% you've quoted is almost certainly \"\"APR,\"\" of which the \"\"A\"\" stands for \"\"annual,\"\" so that 20% would be an annual rate. It makes the most sense, mind you, to keep a minimal balance on a credit card, as the interest rate is higher than most other loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f0411535c70229c0ad41f4dd04e9319", "text": "\"My wife and I have Gap, Kohl's and Amazon cards. They each give extra benefits when using them at their stores, and usually 1% cash back at other places, although we don't use the Gap or Kohl's anywhere else. We don't carry a balance, so as mentioned, the rate doesn't matter. And they are so spread out when we've gotten them (Kohl's for a good 3 years, Amazon about 2 months ago) that I don't expect any issues for credit checks. In fact I just got approved for a mortgage loan, way more than what I know I can really afford. In my mind, credit cards are a bad idea when you use them as \"\"real\"\" credit. If they are used more like a debit card (spending money that you have), its like a loan (you don't have to pay it off til later), and you get paid for it (whether in cash or merchandise).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87155cea74779011f34c601dd0ec51d7", "text": "You're paying $850/yr interest, and probably earning close to zero on the $5000 in savings. I don't know why this feels safe in comparison to having both at zero, and depositing the payment you now make to the card into savings. Even if the payment is just $100, you'll have $1200 in a years time. I don't know of an emergency that can't be handled on a credit card, and I'd go that route until you build up a decent real emergency fund. I wouldn't offer the same advice if the debt were low rate loans such as your mortgage or student loan, but 17% is high enough to do it this way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d2165cf9b5f612c3205f2a984a49d0d", "text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70be767cf8054746efe00c029e2349f2", "text": "\"The bottom line is that you are kind of a terrible customer for them. Granted you are far better than one that does not pay his bills, but you are (probably) in the tier right above that. Rewards cards are used to lure the unorganized into out of control interest rates and late payments. These people are Capital One's, and others, best customers. They have traded hundreds of dollars in interest payments for a couple of dollars in rewards. The CC company says: \"\"YUMMY\"\"! You, on the other hand, cut into their \"\"meager\"\" profits from fees collected from your transactions. Why should they help you make more money? Why should they further cut into your profits? Response to comment: Given your comment I think the bottom line is a matter of perspective. You seem like a logical, altruistic type person who probably seeks a win-win situation in business dealings. This differs from CC companies they operate to seek one thing: enslavement. BTW the \"\"terrible customer\"\" remark should be taken as a compliment. After you get past the marketing lies you begin to see what reward programs and zero percent financing is all about. How do most people end up with 21%+ interest rates? They started with a zero percent balance loan, and was late for a payment. Reward cards work a bit differently. Studies show that people tend to spend about 17% more when they use a reward card. I've caught myself ordering an extra appetizer or beer and have subsequently stopped using a reward card for things I can make a decision at the time of purchase. For people with tight budgets this leads to debt. My \"\"meager\"\" profits paragraph makes sense when you understand the onerous nature of CC companies. They are not interested in earning 2% on purchases (charge 3% and give back 1%) for basically free money. You rightly see this as what should be a win-win for all parties involved. Thus the meager in quotation marks. CC companies are willing to give back 1% and charge 3% if you then pay 15% or more on your balance. Some may disagree with me on the extracting nature of CC companies, but they are wrong. I like him as an actor, but I don't believe Samuel Jackson's lines.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "855a30c9e1b81d1218692523eb29b3a0", "text": "\"After looking at the comments, and your replies it seems that your mind is made up: \"\"You will always be able to obtain 0% credit, and nothing bad will ever happen\"\". Credit cards that offer 0% on balance transfers are very rare. Most have a transfer fee of some kind, which acts like an interest rate. This is a change that probably happened 10 years ago without much fanfare. From this you can draw a lesson: what changes will come in the future? This site and others a full of \"\"tales of woe\"\" where people were playing musical chairs with credit, and when the music stopped, there was no chairs in sight. Job loss, medical expenses, unexpected taxes, natural disasters can all effect one's ability to make payments on time and happen. Once payments start being missed or are late, things tend to avalanche from there. It has happened to me, and loved ones. The pain and suffering is not worth it. Get out of debt. You claim that you are investing the money instead of paying on the debt, and you are making the delta between your prevailing investment rate 7%. Did you include the balance transfer fee in your calculations? First off your investments could lose money. While 2015 was mostly flat, we have not had a correction in a long time. Some say we are long overdue. Secondly, how much money are we really talking about here? Say there is not a balance transfer fee, you could be guaranteed 7%, and you are floating $10K. Congratulations in this mythical scenario you just made $700. If $700 changes your life dramatically perhaps it is time for a second job. This way you can earn that every two weeks (working part time) rather than every year. Now that will really change your life. By applying this amount of mental energy to make $700, what opportunities are you missing? Pay off the debt, you will be much better off in the long run.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5af1dcf797340fb21e09e8aeffc86b22", "text": "it is possible that if you do not accept the offer, they will try offering you an even lower rate. if they offered you close to 0%, you could start carrying a balance and find a better use for the cash you would have spent paying it off. there are plenty of investments with a guaranteed return of over 0%. personally, i am using a 0% offer from one of my cards to invest in the stock market. i might lose that bet, but on average over the last 10 years, i have not. a pretty safe bet would be paying down your mortgage, or buying a cd that matures when the offer ends. that said, even a 10k$ balance might only pay you around 300$. is that worth the hassle to you?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79a3d94523d48ba0fa0abea840e52887", "text": "\"TL;DR summary: 0% balance transfer offers and \"\"free checks usable anywhere\"\" rarely are a good deal for the customer. 0% rate balance transfer offers (and the checks usable anywhere including payment of taxes) come with a transaction fee because the credit card company is paying off the balance on the other card (or the tax or the electric bill) in the full amount of $X as stated on the other card statement or on the tax/electric bill). This is in contrast to a purchase transaction where if you buy something for $X, you pay the card company $X but the card company pays the merchant something less than $X$. (Of course, the merchant has jacked up the sale price of the item to pass on the charge to you.) Can you get the credit card company to waive the transaction fee? You can try asking them but it is unlikely that you will succeed if your credit score is good! I have seen balance transfer offers with no transaction fees made to people who have don't have good credit scores and are used to carrying a balance on their credit cards. I assume that the company making the offer knows that it will make up the transaction fee from future interest payments. A few other points to keep in mind with respect to using a 0% balance transfer offer to pay off a student loan (or anything else for that matter):\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20a3fc4dd6645b7863255ca66ca1e118", "text": "Many banks will let you generate a temporary credit card number to use in this situation. You can set the credit limit and the expiration date yourself so that the second transaction won't be accepted. I don't know of any that will let you set the credit limit to $0, but you can set it to a value under the monthly subscription fee. An answer to this question suggests that banks sometimes let the charge go through even if it exceeds the limit or the expiration date, so the plan might not work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e286a4b4698d26d497f4deb62bf8b825", "text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28598daeb092fe76f9e27383470837c4", "text": "Note: the question is tagged united kingdom, this is a UK focussed answer practices elsewhere may be different). A balance transfer moves your debt from one credit card to another. This can be a good way to get a debt onto a lower (often zero) interest rate. There will usually be a transfer fee but with a good balance transfer deal the effective interest rate even after taking the fee into account can be very good and there are even some deals with 0% interest and no fee. Indeed if you keep on top of things credit cards are often the cheapest way to borrow. Normally a balance transfer is done to a new card that is applied for specifically for the purpose but sometimes it can make sense to transfer a balance to an existing card. However to take advantage of this you need discipline. You need to make absoloutely sure that you fully comply with the rules of the deal and in particular that you pay at least the minimum payment on time. You should also be aware that the rate will usually jump up at the end of the interest free period, you could do another balance transfer but assuming you will be able to do that is risky as it depends on what market conditions and your credit rating look like at the time. Ideally you should have a plan for paying off the card before the interest free period expires. In general you should be aiming to pay down your debts. Living beyond your means is very bad and carrying debt long term should only be done if you have an extremely good reason. You should regard the balance transfer as a tool to help you clear your debts quicker, not as a way to avoid paying them. If you go on a spending spree after your balance transfer you will just have dug yourself deeper in debt. See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/credit-cards/balance-transfer-credit-cards for more on the techniques and the current best cards.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9a91fffd32fe8cf3d8c65408a4be6176	How can I investigate historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation?	[ { "docid": "61324e4efa88c7fb7ec259055a046666", "text": "\"Do not reinvent the wheel! Historical data about stock market returns and standard deviations suffer from number of issues such as past-filling and mostly survivorship bias -- that the current answers do not consider at all. I suggest to read the paper \"\"A Century of Global Stock Markets\"\" by Philippe Jorion (UC Irvine) and William Goetzmann (Yale), here. William Bernstein comments the results here, notice that rebalancing is sometimes a good option but not always, his non-obvious finding where the low SD did not favour from rebalancing: Look at the final page of the paper, \"\"geometric returns -- represent returns to a buy-and-hold strategy\"\" and the \"\"arithmetic averages -- give equal weight to each observation interval.\"\", where you can find your asked \"\"historical effect of Rebalancing on Return and Standard Deviation\"\". The paper nicely summarizes the results to this table: The results in the table are from the interval 1921-1996, it is not that long-time but even longer term data has its own drawbacks. The starting year 1921 is interesting choice because it is around the times of social-economical changes and depressing moments, historical context can be realized from books such as Grapes Of Wrath (short summary here, although fiction to some extent, it has some resonance to the history). The authors have had to ignore some years because of different reasons such as political unrest and wars. Instead of delving into marketed spam as suggested by one reply, I would look into this search here. Look at the number of references and the related papers to judge their value. P.s. I encourage people to attack my open question here, hope we can solve it!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75bcad1593ac0755ac3d8e9080e922d7", "text": "\"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e152f6b5bba8fdb5ea92ad24f628b2ec", "text": "\"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3b46a3bcf094f4b1063d750d505eb04", "text": "From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "427040f8683b2a11bdd39178e27642de", "text": "My level of analysis is not quite that advanced. Can you share what that would show and why that particular measure is the one to use? I've run regression on prices between the two. VIX prices have no correlation to the s&p500 prices. Shouldn't true volatility result in the prices (more people putting options on the VIX during the bad times and driving that price up) correlate to the selloff that occurs within the S&P500 during recessions and other events that would cause significant or minor volatility? My r2 showed no significance within a measurement of regression within Excel. But, gasp I could be wrong, but would love to learn more about better ways of measurement :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13bb3594d0833e52ea096698f9bc2d70", "text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21557fb653fefdf30775b5284d47ee06", "text": "Buy as much data as you can, make a model, automate the back testing, see if it works over the past decade or so. If the returns are offering a superior risk adjusted return then you have a valid model, if not try an other model. If you don't know how to program, learn how to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ba5ef28d6a41f6389a2a8f8f0f9e77a", "text": "\"The question \"\"do they?\"\" is a fair one, but the answer, \"\"we can only observe the past, and that's what they did,\"\" may not be so satisfying to you. It's safe to say that any longer term view of any market will show far less volatility than a short one. It only takes a glance at the return of the 2000's 2009 27.11 2008 -37.22 2007 5.46 2006 15.74 2005 4.79 2004 10.82 2003 28.72 2002 -22.27 2001 -11.98 2000 -9.11 (for the S&P) to see that in an awful decade containing -37% and -22% that the full decade was \"\"only\"\" down 9% in total or just less than 1% per year compounded. I'm not predicting any particular returns forward, just noting this is how the math works. DCA performs well through such a decade, better than in a rising one. You are offered the opportunity to buy into a market selling below the long term trend. Added note in response to Enno's answer below - On rereading the linked article, I see where the author cites Zvi Bodie who clearly made a logical error. He concludes that since a 20 month S&P put costs triple what a 2.3 mo put costs, that there's more risk the market falls over the longer period, not less. American options can be sold or exercised at any time. If a 2 year option were cheaper than a 2 month option, no one would buy the shorter term. It's pretty simple that the Options Pricing Models take time into account and their value, put or call, increases along with the time till expiration. On a lighter note, when I take the S&P data for 1871-2012 (I know, no S&P back then, but it's Schiller's data) I get average 40 year returns of 44X, similar to the author's conclusion, $1K growing to $44K. But, the Standard deviation is 28. So the high end of +1 STDEV is $72K, not the author's $166K. Although, the low end 44-28=16 comes close to his $14K figure. $16K is a 7.18% long term return which today doesn't look bad. When the article was written, the author was looking at a 6% short term risk free rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4afd5945bcc615ebbc57c903f5eff5cc", "text": "From an article I wrote a while back: “Dalbar Inc., a Boston-based financial services research firm, has been measuring the effects of investors’ decisions to buy, sell, and switch into and out of mutual funds since 1984. The key finding always has been that the average investor earns significantly less than the return reported by their funds. (For the 20 years ended Dec. 31, 2006, the average stock fund investor earned a paltry 4.3 average annual compounded return compared to 11.8 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.)” It's one thing to look at the indexes. But quite another to understand what other investors are actually getting. The propensity to sell low and buy high is proven by the data Dalbar publishes. And really makes the case to go after the magic S&P - 0.09% gotten from an ETF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db0a588f856ca1d877f71a9c17a63ae2", "text": "\"I think you're on the wrong track. Getting more and more samples from the real world does not make your backtest more accurate, it just confirms that your strategy can withstand one particular sample path of a stochastic process. The reason why you find it simple to incorporate fees, commissions, taxes, etc. is because they're a static and constant process -- well they might change over time but most definitely uncorrelated to the markets. Modelling overnight returns or the top levels of the order book the next day is serious work. First you have to select a suitable model (that's mostly theoretical work but experience can help a lot). Then, in order to do it data-driven, you'd have to plough through thousands of days of sample data on a set of thousands of instruments to get a \"\"feeling\"\" (aka significant model parameters). Apropos data mining, I think Excel might be the wrong tool for the job. Level-2 data (even just the first 10 levels) is a massive blob. For example, the NYSE OpenBook historical data weighs in at a massive 15 TB compressed (uncompressed 74 TB) for the last 10 years, and costs USD 200k. Anyway, as for other factors to take into account: So how to account for all this in a backtest? Personally, I would put in some penalty terms (as % on a return basis) for every factor you want to consider, don't hardcode them. You can then run a stress test by exploring these parameters (i.e. assign some values in the range of 0 to whatever fits). Explore them individually (only set one penalty term at a time) to get a feeling how the strategy might react to stress from that factor. Then you can run the backtest with typical (or observed) combinations of penalty factors and slowly stress them altogether. Edit Just to avoid confusion about terminology. A backtest in the strict sense (had I implemented this strategy X years ago, what would have happened?) won't benefit from any modelling simply because the real-world \"\"does the sampling\"\" for us. However, to evaluate a strategy's robustness you should account for the additional factors and run some stress tests. If the strategy performs well in the real-world or no-stress scenario but produces losses once a tiny slippage occurs every now and again, you could conclude that the strategy is very fragile. The key is to explore the maximum stress the strategy can handle (by whatever measure); if a lot you can call the strategy robust. The latter is what I personally call a backtest; the first procedure would go by the name \"\"extension towards the past\"\" or so. Some lightweight literature:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1972c4bb86c1c26f86d8243cf45d2cbc", "text": "\"To your first comment: yup. To your second comment, A = L + E. If E goes down, and L goes up, the net effect is 0. Then, if L goes down, and A goes up, the net effect is 0 and we are balanced once again. There is no \"\"rebalancing\"\" equity. You just have to make sure that, at the end of your journal entries, the accounting equation holds. It's a very unintuitive concept to wrap your head around, but spend some time mapping out the flow of various journal entries. Once it clicks, you'll really understand the logic.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4d030a54052cb3d51590f518fd22cdc", "text": "What you were told isn't an absolute truth, so trying to counter something fundamentally flawed won't get you anywhere. For example: chinese midcap equities are up 20% this year, even from their high of 100%. While the BSE Sensex in India is down several percentage points on the year. Your portfolio would have lost money this year taking advice from your peers. The fluctuation in the rupees and remnibi would not have changed this fact. What you are asking is a pretty common area of research, as in several people will write their dissertation on the exact same topic every year, and you should be able to find various analysis and theories on the subject. But the macroeconomic landscape changes, a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6f8c74a0902a1fa88280961a409867b", "text": "This link does it ok: http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before. You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%. The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically. To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp(). This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized. There are ~240 trading days each year. You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc. This is your number for sigma. This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00135dcac4fb6133749e18b232752e96", "text": "you can check google scholar for some research reports on it. depends how complex you want to get... it is obviously a function of the size of the portfolio of each type of asset. do you have a full breakdown of securities held? you can get historical average volumes during different economic periods, categorized by interest rates for example, and then calculate the days required to liquidate the position, applying a discount on each subsequent day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12c634220fc3e2dc46fc247bc28c4557", "text": "I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0066da15e23a8a5e920016f6540b79c7", "text": "My thoughts from the top: 1. If you're already long, which not just buy-write? if you want to sit on the portfolio for some time with little rebalancing collecting some option premiums might not be bad? 2. You can replicate this portfolio on a rolling basis through bull spreads, which should hedge (or at least reduce) your theta and give you some of that sweet sweet convexity, however you will need a large enough size to cover your transaction costs. 3. I agree with maximizing mean / lower semi var (most kids max mean/var)) so good move there. However you need estimates of expected return (not easy!) and semi var (easier). Look into using GARCH (or a form of it) on the semi var for a better estimator. 4. Is this an MSR portfolio? How do you determine your weights? 5. In terms of sizing/leverage, Remember the betting condition that equity needs to be positive for all time. How are you planning to limit your max DD? and how often do you plan on rebalancing/rebetting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3dccc75bc4b29bf2cb80a8c9dff15b95", "text": "\"My answer is Microsoft Excel. Google \"\"VBA for dummies\"\" (seriously) and find out if your brokerage offers an 'API'. With a brief understanding of coding you can get a spreadsheet that is live connected to your brokers data stream. Say you have a spreadsheet with the 1990 value of each in the first two columns (cells a1 and b1). Maybe this formula could be the third column, it'll tell you how much to buy or sell to rebalance them. then to iterate the rebalance, set both a2 and b2 to =C1 and drag the formula through row 25, one row for each year. It'll probably be a little more work than that, but you get the idea.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab49bc410881ee4bc8e5e5d965482653", "text": "\"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5Asig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce033f385da61f67b0c492443451b1d", "text": "\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ae479f8ac2dd3ade62a40f3e890af519	Is there an advantage to keeping a liquid emergency fund if one also has an untapped line of credit?	[ { "docid": "ffe077ce7109494b884f009cd2cac25f", "text": "\"People treat an emergency fund as some kind of ace-in-the-hole when it comes to financial difficulty, but it is only one of many sources of money that you can utilize. What is an emergency? First, you have to define what an emergency is. Is it a lost job? Is it an unplanned event (pregnancy, perhaps)? Is it a medical emergency? Is it the death of you or your spouse? Also, what does it mean to be unplanned? Is being so unhappy with your job that you give a 2-week notice an emergency? Is one month of planning an emergency? Two? Only you can answer these questions for yourself, but they significantly shape your financial strategy. Planning is highly dependent on your cashflow, and, for some people, it may take them a year to build enough savings to enable them to take 3 months off work. For others, they may be able to change their spending to build up enough for 3 months in 1 month. Also, you have to consider the length of the emergency. Job-loss is rarely permanent, but it's rarely short as well. The current average is 30.7 weeks: that's 7 months! Money in an Emergency There are six main places that people get money during a financial emergency: A good emergency strategy takes all six of these into account. Some emergencies may lean more on one source than the other. However, some of these are correlated. For example, in 2008, three things happened: the stock market crashed, unsecured debt dried up, and people faced financial emergency (lost jobs, cut wages). If you were dependent on a stock portfolio and/or a line of credit, you'd be up a creek, because the value of your investments suddenly decreased, and you can't really tap your now significantly limited line of credit. However, if you had a one or more of cash savings, unemployment income, and unemployment insurance, you would probably have been OK. Budgeting for an emergency When you say \"\"financial emergency\"\", most people think job loss. However, the most common cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical debt. Depending on your insurance situation, this could be a serious risk, or it may not be. People say you should have 3x-6x of your monthly income in savings because it's an easy, back-of-the-envelope way to handle most financial emergency risk, but it's not necessarily the most prudent strategy for you. To properly budget for an emergency, you need to fully take into account what emergencies you are likely to face, and what sources of financing you would have access to given the likely factors that led to that emergency. Generally, having a savings account with some amount of liquid cash is an important part of a risk-mitigation strategy. But it's not a panacea for every kind of emergency.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a67298f52619d3c35b2342faffac8d53", "text": "An emergency fund is your money, sitting in a bank, that you can use for emergency purposes. A line of credit is somebody else's money, that they've provisionally promised to let you borrow. But they can change their mind at any time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51bbf740df39c552cd7d4e7f64fd6765", "text": "Stop trying to make money with your emergency fund. It's purpose is to sit there idly waiting for a bad day. A day when you need that cash (liquid) not in a bank or a line-of-credit. The few dollars you might make trying to chase interest/investments with your emergency fund aren't worth it if a true emergency came up and you couldn't get to your cash in time. Once you have a fully funded EF then start investing heavily. That's your future game plan. Not the EF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90986d354dc2fcc11c181dfe8dd3d86", "text": "recommend keeping some amount of money in cash as an emergency fund I see two keywords, with two interpretations here. Cash: Emergency: 1 + 1 is rarely a problem. Even if it takes a couple of days to sell reliable investments. 1 + 2 is a rather large problem. You need to leave town, today, because the town won't be there tomorrow. You're out of gas, and the phones are not working. The guy minding the local service station with an AR-15 can't process your Amex Centurion card and would prefer actual cash. I live in an area prone to earthquakes and cyclonic storms. The last large one didn't knock out anything major, but the cash machines emptied out rather quickly. We keep a month's income in cash in the house, and I have a spare tank of gas in storage. As others have said, there is no single answer for everyone. But do consider what you take for granted and what happens when it goes away. Change it every 2 months - common gasoline is not chemically stable", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4cea859a9848373c95e16a60f3aeadd", "text": "Why can't you have both? If you do have both credit and an emergency fund, and an emergency occurs, you can draw from the line of credit first. Having debt + cash is a much more stable situation than having neither, because then you have the option to use the cash to pay off the debt, or use the cash to pay other expenses. If you just have cash, when you spend it it's gone and there's no guarantee anyone is going to lend you any money at that point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da830d3a774fd1aa0fa443bd744cd5f2", "text": "Let me offer what I did in a similar situation - Two points (a) we were banking $20K/yr or so to the cash fund, 2 good incomes, and the ability to go indefinitely on just one of the 2. (b) A HELOC that was prime-1.5%. The result was to mentally treat the HELOC as our emergency fund, but to enjoy the interest savings of over $16,500/yr for the $100K that had a sub-1% return. When I first referenced this story, I came under criticism. Fair enough, it's not for everyone. Let's jump ahead. We owe $228K @3.5%. We had tapped the equity line for brief periods, but never over $20,000. When we lost our jobs, both of us, we had hit our number and are semi-retired now. Our retirement budget included the current mortgage payment, so we are in line for that dropping out of the budget in 12 years, and starting social security after that, which I did not include as part of the budget. Note - when we lost our jobs, the severance was 6 month's pay, and we collected unemployment as well. The first 12 months were covered without tapping our retirement funds at all. So, to Nick's point (and excellent answer) our first line of defense against unemployment was this combination of severance and unemployment insurance.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b951581481716127c2df5bc1a90db315", "text": "Emergency funds, car funds etc tend to have to be accessible quickly (which tends to rule out CDs unless you have the patience to work something like a monthly CD ladder, an I don't) and you'll want your principal protected. The latter pretty much rules out any proper investment (ETFs, mutual funds, stock market directly, Elbonian dirt futures etc). It's basically a risk-vs-return calculation. Not much risk, not much return but at least you're not losing from a nominal standpoint). Another consideration is that you normally aren't able to decide freely if and when you want to pull money out of an emergency fund. If it is an emergency, waiting three weeks to see if the stock market goes up a little further isn't an option so you might end up having to take a hit that would be irrelevant if you were investing long term but might hurt badly because you're left with no choice. I'd stick that sort of money into a money market account and either add to it if necessary to keep up with inflation or make sure that my non-retirement investments over and above these funds are performing well, as those will and should become a far bigger part of your wealth in the longer run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43305778558f5a349ee78bad0565886b", "text": "\"So long as you have complete, virtually instant access to funds through checks, debit card, or ATM transaction, then yes it would be a better option than a \"\"vanilla\"\" savings account. If it's in a brokerage account that you would need to process a transfer and potentially wait a few days for everything to settle, then I would just keep it in savings. The amount earned in interest isn't worth the extra hassle. A compromise might be to keep a few thousand in a savings account and the rest in a money market. That way you earn some interest and still have instant access to enough funds to cover most emergencies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "151ec6d3e24b890cc9732e88649dfd6e", "text": "\"What you're describing makes sense. I'd probably call the non-liquid portion something besides my \"\"emergency fund\"\", but that's semantics mostly. If you have 3 months of \"\"very liquid\"\" cash in this emergency fund and you're comfortable that this amount is good for your situation, then I don't see why you can't have additional savings in more or less liquid vehicles. Whatever you set up, you'll want to think about how to tap it when you need it. You might have a CD ladder with one maturing every three months. That would give you access to these funds after your liquid funds dry up. (Or for a small/short term emergency, you'll be able to replenish the liquid fund with the next-maturing CD.) Or set up a T Bill ladder with the same structure. This might provide you with a tax advantage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c266d9796adb77a13575342646c77fc7", "text": "This very much depends how you use that second line of credit and what your current credit is. There are of course many more combinations buy you can probably infer the impact based on these cases. Your credit score is based on your likely hood of being profitable to a creditor should they issue you credit. This is based on your history of your ability to manage your credit. Having more credit and managing it well shows that you have a history of being responsible with greater sums of money available. If you use the card responsibly now then you are more likely to continue that trend than someone with a history of irresponsibility. Having a line but not using it is not a good thing. It costs the creditor money for you to have an account. If you never use that account then you are not showing that you can use the account responsibly so if you are just going to throw the card in a safe and never access it then you are better off not getting the card in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd7306a60bf14d01085ce39d5567c46d", "text": "Two adages come to mind. Never finance a depreciating asset. If you can't pay cash for a car, you can't afford it. If you decide you can finance at a low rate and invest at a higher one, you're leveraging your capital. The risk here is that your investment drops in value, or your cash flow stops and you are unable to continue payments and have to sell the car, or surrender it. There are fewer risks if you buy the car outright. There is one cost that is not considered though. Opportunity cost. Since you've declared transportation necessary, I'd say that opportunity cost is worth the lower risk, assuming you have enough cash left after buying a car to fund your emergency fund. Which brings me to my final point. Be sure to buy a quality used car, not a new one. Your emergency fund should be able to replace the car completely, in the case of a total loss where you are at fault and the loss is not covered by insurance. TLDR: My opinion is that it would be better to pay for a quality, efficient, basic transportation car up front than to take on a debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6725044141c33fd5c3eef4fd431c8f1a", "text": "I'd imagine that it's a small portion of the population that can have much of both. If one is saving a decent amount for retirement, say 10-15%, they aren't likely to have much else, aside from the house if included. For example, when I look at my 'pie chart' I get Retirement 72%, House 22%, everything else 6%. Specific to your question, emergency funds should be just that, accessible for urgent matters, other short term needs, such as car fund, big TV fund, vacation, etc, also in non-risky cash (i.e. money funds CDs, etc) and the rest invested long term. The short need money isn't part of the long term asset allocation, to be specific.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc06d66b7e8fe26847058f0113f9e9b", "text": "\"IMO, you can do whatever you want with an emergency fund, as long as it is in a deposit-type account. The purpose of the fund is for emergencies, not to make money, so you want it to be liquid so that you can access it in an emergency. Personally, I'm willing to take accept a potential penalty for withdrawing. Here's some examples of what I mean: You don't want \"\"emergency\"\" funds in a marketable security, because your emergency could be directly or indirectly related to some sort of market crisis. If you absolutely needed to liquidate an investment in the days after the collapse of Lehman brothers, you probably would have taken a bath -- even secure, US State bonds fell in value. If you feel that this is taking too much cash off the table, that's ok, just don't consider the part that you invest part of your \"\"emergency\"\" fund. The 3-8 months of expenses thing depends on your situation. If you're a salesman, err towards 8. If you're a unionized civil service worker with seniority, 3 months is probably appropriate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad53a673e51687e957147a328395e9c7", "text": "\"There are exactly zero experts in the field of Personal Finance that would advise having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" (liquid assets available to meet sudden obligations like illness, car accident, AC breaks, etc.) that is sub $1,000. If you have less than $1k in liquid assets you either A. must live at home with your parents, B. very broke or C. being very irresponsible. I think an emergency fund of $10k is really the sweet spot. I can't imagine anyone reasonable funding the shit out of their 401k, IRA, etc. and having less than $1k cash.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c8b8f2114d894c81f268278ac51dcab", "text": "Based on your situation, I'm not sure it should be an either/or sort of choice. The less debt you have the better, but because the HELOC is secured debt, the interest rate should be rather low. If you're trying to build a cash cushion for emergencies, it may help to figure out a few things first: Once you know how much you want to save and how long it will take, you can figure out how much longer it would take of some of the savings were diverted to debt reduction. If your credit is good enough to get a HELOC in the first place, putting some of your cash-flow toward both goals is an option worth considering.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fb04bb2fa978a172aa3069d185e839f", "text": "There is no difference in safety form the perspective of the bank failing, due to FDIC/NCUA insurance. However, there is a practical issue that should be considered, if you allow payments to be automatically withdrawn from your checking account In the case of an error, all of you money may be unavailable until the error is resolved, which could be days or weeks. By having two accounts, this possibility may be reduced. It isn't a difference between checking and savings, but a benefit of having two accounts. Note that if both accounts are at the same bank, hey make take money from other accounts to cover the shortfall. That said, I've done this for years and have never had a problem. Also, I have two accounts, one at a local credit union with just enough kept in it to cover any payments, and another online account that has the rest of my savings. I can easily transfer funds between the two accounts in a couple days.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ae8cee53c6821193a857a53fb8465ba", "text": "Choosing between an emergency fund and investing aside, there is no reason to use a systematic investment plan when you have a lump sum ready to invest. Here are the three possible futures, and the effects on each strategy: Obviously if you are investing in the market you expect it to go up over time, so using an SIP will work against you in that case. If the market does go down you'd be better off, but historically the market has gone up more than it's gone down, so there's no practical reason to keep money in your pockets You can always rebalance, change investments, do whatever after you've invested, so at worst you may have some transaction fees, but that shouldn't be a huge issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e18a477fd77394ef56f7c56879824f1", "text": "There is no right answer here, one has to make the choice himself. Its best to have an emergency fund before you start to commit funds to other reasons. The plan looks good. Keep following it and revise the plan often.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b3f82490545738a70a5650e386482f7", "text": "The latter. Simply because having some savings is always better than having no savings. Using a credit card in an emergency will always be an option (as long as you are paying off debt) but using savings earmarked for emergencies is better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e11555027058c615d0e7427ecf6e208", "text": "Since you're coming out of college, you're probably a new investor and don't know too much about stocks, etc. I was in the same situation as well. I wanted to keep my cash 'liquid' and wanted to make low risk investments. What I ended up doing was investing the majority of my money in higher interest GICs (Guaranteed Investment Certificate) and keeping the rest in my chequing/savings account. I understand that GICs aren't exactly the most liquid asset out there. However, instead of investing it all into 1 GIC, I put them in to smaller increments with varying lock-in times and roll-over options. I.e. for 15000 keep $3000 on hand in your account 2x$1000 invested for 2 years 4x$1000 invested for 1 year 3x$1000 invested for 180 days 3x$1000 invested for 90 days When you find that you run out of cash from your $3000, you'll have a GIC expiring soon. The 'problem' with GICs is that redeeming them before the maturity period usually incurs a penalty in the form of no interest. Keeping them in smaller increments allows you to redeem only the amount you need without losing too much interest. At maturity, if you don't need the money, you can just have the GIC renew. The other problem with GICs, is that interest rates, though better than savings accounts, aren't that much more. You're basically just fighting off inflation. The benefit is that on maturity, you are guaranteed your principal and the interest. This plan is easy to implement if your bank/credit union allows you to create and manage GICs online.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9e33a468c248932449a65b23d02f4b5", "text": "I suppose it depends on how liquid you need, and if you're willing to put forth any risk whatsoever. The stock market can be dangerous, but there are strategies out there that will allow you to insure yourself against significant loss, while likely earning you a decent return. You can buy and sell options along with stocks so that if the stock drops, your loss is limited, and if it goes up or even stays where it's at, you make money (a lot more than 1% annually). Of course there's risk of loss, but if you plan ahead, you can cap that risk wherever you want, maybe 5%, maybe 10%, whatever suits your needs. And as far as liquidity goes, it should be no more than a week or so to close your positions and get your money if you really need it. But even so, I would only recommend this after putting aside at least a few thousand in a cash account for emergencies.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
951e623a39e65e988d2de724a5e0efca	How to avoid getting back into debt?	[ { "docid": "00ce3bc199079b9acefce954774227f7", "text": "Draw up a budget and see where most of you expenses go to. See if you can cut any not essential expenses. If this doesn't help much you will need to increase your income. Ways to do this without going into debt may be to get a job, ask your parents for money, sell some of your non essential things, tutor fellow students or students in earlier years, just to name a few. Basically, if you want to stay out of debt you income needs to be higher than your expenses. So you either need to reduce your expenses, increase your income, or both. Without further information from yourself it would be quite hard to direct you in the right direction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a83f2509dd446926c5835164c3ac2c89", "text": "\"First, you've learned a very good lesson that quite a few people miss out on: notice how easy it is to get out of debt when you get a windfall of money? The trouble is that if a person doesn't have the behavior to maintain their position, they will end up in the same place. Many lottery winners end up being poor in the long run because their behavior is the problem, not their finances. If you feel that you're going to end up in debt again, this means simply that somewhere in your finances, your expenses exceed your income. Simply put, there's only two fundamental things that can be done: You can do one or the other, or both. Over budgeting, I prefer automation - automate your bills and spending by setting up a bill and spending account and when the money's gone, it's gone (you can tell yourself at that point, \"\"I have to find another source of income before I spend more\"\"). This not only helps you show where your money is going now, it also puts a constraint on your spending, which sounds like most of the problem currently. Many of my friends and I make our saved/invested money VERY HARD to access, so that we can't get it immediately (like putting it in an account that will require three or four days to get to). The purpose of this is to shape your behavior into actions of either increasing your income, decreasing your spending, or both.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07b710be19ecd9d427a1c15c598c99b9", "text": "Congratulations on seeing your situation clearly! That's half the battle. To prevent yourself from going back into debt, you should get rid of any credit cards you have and close the accounts. Just use your debit card. Your post indicates you're not the type to splurge and get stuff just because you want it, so saving for a larger purchase and paying cash for it is probably something you're willing to do. Contrary to popular belief, you can live just fine without a credit card and without a credit score. If you're never going back into debt, you don't need a credit score. Buying a house is possible without one, but is admittedly more work for you and for the underwriters because they can't just ask the FICO god to bless you -- they have to actually see your finances, and you have to actually have some. (I realize many folks will hate this advice, but I am actually living it, and life is pretty good.) If you're in school, look at how much you spend on food while on campus. $5-$10/day for lunch adds up to $100-$200 over a month (M-F, four weeks). Buy groceries and pack a lunch if you can. If your expenses cannot be reduced anymore, you're going to have to get a job. There is nothing wrong with slowing down your studies and working a job to get your income up above your expenses. It stinks being a poor student, but it stinks even more to be a poor student with a mountain of debt. You'll find that working a job doesn't slow you down all that much. Tons of students work their way through school and graduate in plenty of time to get a good job. Good luck to you! You can do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "900e83aeee3c47bf0310c2a76ad94dd9", "text": "Depending on how marketable your degree is, in the long run you may be better aquiring some student debt rather than slowing down your studies. For example finishing finance, medicine, or engineering a year later would mean one less year of your life that you are earning substantial income. The only situation where slowing down your studies is of benefit is if your savings plus interest would be greater than the income you are giving up by taking longer. Live frugally, take whatever work you can without hurting your studies, don't stress if you can't get this to balance perfectly. I speak from experience on this. Screwing around with working through school cost me 2.5 years of earning potential ($120,000+).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb3554506294ee173e60fd2cb0e55567", "text": "Spend less than you earn. If you have no job (source of income), then you can not possibly stay out of debt as you have to spend money to live and study.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b370f4cf544b9d16301ff173ab8e399", "text": "The essential (and obvious) thing to avoid getting back into debt (or to reduce debt if you have it) is to make your total income exceed your total expenses. That means either increasing your income or reducing your total expenses. Either take effort. Basically, you need a plan. If your plan is to increase income, work out how. If the plan is to increase hours in your current, you need to allow for your needs (sleep, rest, etc) and also convince your employer they will benefit by paying you to work more hours. If your intent is to increase your hourly rate, you need to convince a current or prospective employer that you have the capacity, skills, etc to deliver more on the job, so you are worth paying more. If your intent is to get qualifications so you can get a better paying job, work out how much effort (studying, etc) you will apply, over how long, what expenses you will carry (fees, textbooks, etc), and how long you will carry them for (will you accept working some years in a higher paying job, to clear the debt?). Most of those options involve a lot of work, take time, and often mean carrying debt until you are in a position to pay it off. There is nothing wrong with getting a job while studying, but you have to be realistic about the demands. There is nothing sacrosanct about studying that means you shouldn't have a job. However, you need to be clear how many hours you can work in a job before your studies will suffer unnecessarily, and possibly accept the need to study part time so you can work (which means the study will take longer, but you won't struggle as much financially). If your plan is to reduce expenses, you need a budget. Itemize all of your spend. Don't hide anything from that list, no matter how small. Work out which of the things you need (paying off debt is one), which you can get rid of, which you need to reduce - and by how much. Be brutal with reducing or eliminating the non-essentials no matter how much you would prefer otherwise. Keep going until you have a budget in which your expenses are less than your income. Then stick to it - there is no other answer. Revisit your budget regularly, so you can handle things you haven't previously planned for (say, rent increase, increase fees for something you need, etc). If your income increases (or you have a windfall), don't simply drop the budget - the best way to get in trouble is to neglect the budget, and get into a pattern of spending more than you have. Instead, incorporate the changes into your budget - and plan how you will use the extra income. There is nothing wrong with increasing your spend on non-essentials, but the purpose of the budget is to keep control of how you do that, by keeping track of what you can afford.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5d0cacd44d47bd86f25b7044742682f", "text": "Get someone in your family to pay for it. If that's not an option, you have no choice but to make do with what you can do, and either get a job or a loan. I'd advise a job unless you're studying something with a really strong possibility of getting you a high paid job.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f97e9b978fac2b9442492ec8e16729f", "text": "\"I'm going to subtly and cheekily change the obvious advice. There are three ways to deal with negative cashflow, not two: You're currently studying for a degree. You don't say what country you're in or how your studies are funded, but most people in the US, UK, and a fair number of other countries, run up debts while studying for a degree. They do this because a degree is valuable to them. They can't avoid it because the tuition alone costs more than most students can generate in income, never mind their living expenses. So by all means look for savings, (1). Clearly strangers on the internet can't just think up ways for you to spend less money without knowing anything about what you do spend money on. But you can at least list your expenditures for yourself, and see what's necessary. Consider also how much fun you want your studies to be: 4 years in a cold house to avoid paying for heating, and never going out with friends to avoid spending on unnecessary stuff is all very well. But with hindsight you'll regret torturing yourself if you're ever well-off enough to pay back whatever you would have borrowed to use for heating and fun. Only do (2) if it doesn't affect your studies or if the money you're paid justifies delaying the valuable asset you seek to acquire (a degree, leading perhaps to a better job but at least to the capacity to do a full-time job rather than fitting work around your studies). There are some jobs that are really good fits for students (reasonably low hours that don't clash with classes) and some jobs that are terrible. If these fail, resort to (3). I don't mean dishonest book-keeping, I mean accept that you are going to borrow money in order to pay for something of value that you can account as an asset. Work out now what you'll need to borrow and how you think you can pay it back, make sure the sum is worth it, budget for that, stick to your budget. You'll still have negative cashflow, nothing changes there, but your capital account looks fine. Personally I wouldn't actually put a monetary value on the degree, I'm not that bothered about the accounts and it's really difficult to be accurate about it. You can just consider it, \"\"more than I expect to borrow\"\" and be done with it. Studying costs money. Once you've graduated, you probably aren't going to be back here saying, \"\"I want to buy a house but I have no capital and I don't want to go into debt\"\". Are you? ;-) Although if you are, the answer happens to be \"\"Islamic mortgage\"\"! I don't know whether Islamic banks have an equivalent answer for student debt, since they can't own a share of your degree like they can a share of your home. Unless you're a Muslim, presumably the ways that Islamic finance avoids interest payments would not in any case satisfy your desire to be \"\"not in debt\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43bcbeaea5441f622674e2cede1d0b6b", "text": "With your windfall, you've been given a second chance. You've become debt free again, and get to start over. Here is what I would recommend from this point on: Decide that you want to remain debt free. It sounds like you've already done this, since you are asking this question. Commit to never borrowing money again. It sounds overly simplistic, but if you stop using your credit cards to spend money you don't have and you don't take out any loans, you won't be in debt. Learn to budget. Here is what is going to make being debt free possible. At the beginning of each month, you are going to write down your income for the month. Then write down your expenses for the month. Make sure you include everything. You'll have fixed monthly expenses, like rent, and variable monthly expenses, like electricity and phone. You'll also have ongoing expenses, like food, transportation, and entertainment. You'll have some expenses, like tuition, which doesn't come up every month, but is predictable and needs to be paid. (For these, you'll can set aside part of the money for the expense each month, and when the bill comes, you'll have the funds to pay it ready to go.) Using budgeting software, such as YNAB (which I recommend) will make this whole process much easier. You are allowed to change your plan if you need to at any time, but do not allow yourself to spend any money that is not in the plan. Take action to address any issues that become apparent from your budget. As you do your budget, you will probably struggle, at first. You will find that you don't have enough income to cover your expenses. Fortunately, you are now armed with data to be able to tackle this problem. There are two causes: either your expenses are too high, or your income is too low. Cut your expenses, if necessary. Before you had a written budget, it was hard to know where your money went each month. Now that you have a budget, it might be apparent that you are spending too much on food, or that you are spending too much on entertainment, or even that a roommate is stealing money. Do what you need to do to cut back the expenses that need cutting. Increase your income, if necessary. You might find from your budget that your expenses aren't out of line. You live in as cheap a place as possible, you eat inexpensively, you don't go out to eat, etc. In this case, the problem isn't your spending, it is your income. In order to stay out of debt, you'll need to increase your income (get a job). I know that you said that this will slow your studies, but because you are now budgeting, you have an advantage you didn't have before: you now know how short you are each month. You can take a part time job that will earn you just enough income to remain debt free while maximizing your study time. Build up a small emergency fund. Emergencies that you didn't plan for in your budget happen. To remain debt free, you should have some money set aside to cover something like this, so you don't have to borrow when it comes up. The general rule of thumb is 3 to 6 months of expenses, but as a college kid with low expenses and no family to take care of, you won't need a huge fund. $500 to $1000 extra in the bank to cover an unexpected emergency expense could be all it takes to keep you debt free.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a17f801749c61e70721be29bae27a51d", "text": "There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "021a1011b701558cdab82b4690cd727f", "text": "The problem with having no debt at all and relying totally on your income from working is that if you lose your job you'll have no income. Now there are 2 types of debt: good debt and bad debt. You should stay away from bad debt. But good debt is good — it should produce an income higher than the interest payments on the debt. Good debt will help you supplement your income from work and eventually replace your income from work. I have over $2M in good debt, have been semi-retired since 42, and sleep very well at night. By the way I also have zero bad debt. As Joe says, you have to be at a level you are comfortable with, can sleep at night, and try to limit your bad debt by showing some delayed gratification when you are starting off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6fed25c052bb6f17e2cefe0c453afae", "text": "\"Make a list of all your expenses. I use an Excel spreadsheet but you can do it on the back of a napkin if you prefer. List fixed expenses, like rent, loan payments, insurance, etc. I include giving to church and charity as fixed expenses, but of course that's up to you. List regular but not fixed expenses, like food, heat and electricity, gas, etc. Come up with reasonable average or typical values for these. Keep records for at least a few months so you're not just guessing. (Though remember that some will vary with the season: presumably you spend a lot more on heat in the winter than in the summer, etc.) You should budget to put something into savings and retirement. If you're young and just starting out, it's easy to decide to postpone retirement savings. But the sooner you start, the more the money will add up. Even if you can't put away a lot, try to put away SOMETHING. And if you budget for it, you should just get used to not having this money to play with. Then total all this up and compare to your income. If the total is more than your income, you have a problem! You need to find a way to cut some expenses. I won't go any further with that thought -- that's another subject. Hopefully you have some money left over after paying all the regular expenses. That's what you have to play with for entertainment and other non-essentials. Make a schedule for paying your bills. I get paid twice a month, and so I pay most of my bills when I get a paycheck. I have some bills that I allocate to the first check of the month and some to the second, for others, whatever bills came in since my last check, I pay with the current check. I have it arranged so each check is big enough to pay all the bills that come from that check. If you can't do that, if you'll have a surplus from one check and a shortage from the next, then be sure to put money aside from the surplus check to cover the bills you'll pay at the next pay period. Always pay your bills before you spend money on entertainment. Always have a plan to pay your bills. Don't say, \"\"oh, I'll come up with the money somehow\"\". If you have debt -- student loans, car loans, etc -- have a plan to pay it off. One of the most common traps people fall into is saying, \"\"I really need to get out of debt. And I'm going to start paying off my debt. Next month, because this month I really want to buy this way cool toy.\"\" They put off getting out of debt until they have frittered away huge amounts of money on interest. Or worse, they keep accumulating new debt until they can't even pay the interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "961e7e8d3ce6ff1e69785437be16b1be", "text": "Unlike other responses, I am also not good with money. Actually, I understand personal finance well, but I'm not good at executing my financial life responsibly. Part is avoiding tough news, part is laziness. There are tools that can help you be better with your money. In the past, I used YNAB (You Need a Budget). (I'm not affiliated, and I'm not saying this product is better than others for OP.) Whether you use their software or not, their strategy works if you stick with it. Each time you get paid, allocate every dollar to categories where your budget tells you they need to be, prioritizing expenses, then bills, then debt reduction, then wealth building. As you spend money, mark it against those categories. Reconcile them as you spend the money. If you go over in one category (eating out for example), you have to take from another (entertainment). There's no penalties for going over, but you have to take from another category to cover it. So the trick to all of it is being honest with yourself, sticking to it, recording all expenditures, and keeping priorities straight. I used it for three months. Like many others, I saved enough the first month to pay the cost of the software. I don't remember why I stopped using it, but I wish I had not. I will start again soon.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b117ffc4be3b40ef6e57f576be646797", "text": "\"It may seem like you cannot live without this trip, but borrowing money is a bad habit to get into. Especially for things like vacations. Your best bet is to save up money and only ever pay cash for things that will decrease in value. Please note that while it is a bad idea to borrow money for things that decrease in value, the \"\"opposite\"\" is not necessarily true. That is, it is not necessarily a good idea to borrow money for things that will increase in value; or, will earn you income. False assumptions can cloud our judgement. The housing bubble and the stock market crash of 1929 are two examples, but there are many others.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7027ef494c9a7bf04fcdaeeaf86ae2b4", "text": "\"I added the tag 'budget' to your question. A detailed budget is the ideal tool for someone in your situation. And the details you offer indicate to me that's exactly what you've done. This first step is out of the way. Our (US) Vice President has a saying \"\"Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget and I will tell you what you value.\"\" In this light, I suggest you consider each and every item in your budget. With $87 left this past month, consider how cutting back a bit and finding a way to not spend another $45, less than 1% of that budget, will increase that savings over 50%. Every item can be lowered. If you took a cab, why not take public transportation. For cabs, can you car-pool, and join up with coworkers to share the ride? Can you downsize the apartment or get a bigger one but with a roommate? I've seen people do this. They go from a tiny one bedroom to a larger 2 bedroom that costs 50% more, but they are just paying half the rent. They also save on utilities, internet, etc. When I analyzed my food budget, I calculated $10/person per day. Can you cut back restaurant meals or takeout food? Sorry, not 'can you', but 'are you willing to'? Last, there are unlimited way to earn more money. You might not get the $35/hr you make at your day job, but just $15/hr is still $120 for a weekend shift. 2 of those a month can help you kill the debt, and gain some pocket money. A fellow blogger was in IT, but in a tight budget situation like you. He \"\"delivered away his debt\"\" by working for a pizza shop. Simple to do, but he had a goal, and quit when the debt was paid.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f7e29383446f4f67dd080e3f8938a28", "text": "\"As others have said, doing a monthly budget is a great idea. I tried the tracking expenses method for years and it got me nowhere, I think for these reasons: If budgeting isn't your cup of tea, try the \"\"pay yourself first\"\" method. Here, as soon as you get a paycheck take some substantial portion immediately and use it to pay down debt, or put it in savings (if you have no debt). Doing this will force you to spend less money on impulse items, and force you to really watch your spending. If you take this option, be absolutely sure you don't have any open credit accounts, or you'll just use them to make up the difference when you find yourself broke in the middle of the month. The overall key here is to get yourself into a long term mind set. Always ask yourself things like \"\"Am I going to care that I didn't have this in 10 years? 5 years? 2 months? 2 days even? And ask yourself things like \"\"Would I perfer this now, or this later plus being 100% debt free, and not having to worry if I have a steady paycheck\"\". I think what finally kicked my butt and made me realize I needed a long term mind set was reading The Millionaire Next Door by Tom Stanley. It made me realize that the rich get rich by constantly thinking in the long term, and therefore being more frugal, not by \"\"leveraging\"\" debt on real estate or something like 90% of the other books out there tell you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992da1080fe611d662156a08fef8b369", "text": "For reference see this article. This article does an okay job of explaining why, but it could be better. To expand on point #4 if you lose your job, you will be forced to repay the loan in 90 days. If do not pay it back in time, you will be hit with your highest marginal tax rate and a 10% penalty. How does borrowing money at 40% interest sound? Why do you have credit card debt? I'll give you the loving answer: bad behavior. The longer you hold this debt the more indicative it is about out of control behavior. To remedy this I would recommend the following: While you are behaving like most people (normal); most people are broke. Congratulations on having the desire to not be broke. Do you now have the courage to change? Having that courage could mean generational wealth building and freedom from debt. As a reformed overspender it has meant exactly that for me and my family.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db6ab0b8e2dee288c1b67cff6ff26972", "text": "Don't do debt. After a few years (I forget how many) the bad history will have rolled off, but by then you will probably have no desire to go back into debt again. If you do want to build up a credit score, then at that point it's essentially the same as starting from scratch. However, from personal experience, once you've lived debt free for a few years you never want to get back on the debt wheel again. A credit score is the output of a behavioral model that indicates the chances that a bank will earn money from your business. Do things that earn the banks money and you will have a high credit score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd95920332a53490541978e50e20cf44", "text": "By reducing your debt you will increase your borrowing capability which will only increase your credit score. But before you start worrying about your credit score as JoeTaxpayer says I would first stop paying 18+% to the bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d928ef4d9e926330853c2e5a63a88b80", "text": "\"Debt increases your exposure to risk. What happens if you lose your job, or a major expense comes up and you have to make a hard decision about skipping a loan payment? Being debt free means you aren't paying money to the bank in interest, and that's money that can go into your pocket. Debt can be a useful tool, however. It's all about what you do with the money you borrow. Will you be able to get something back that is worth more than the interest of the loan? A good example is your education. How much more money will you make with a college degree? Is it more than you will be paying in interest over the life of the loan? Then it was probably worth it. Instead of paying down your loans, can you invest that money into something with a better rate of rate of return than the interest rate of the loan? For example, why pay off your 3% student loan if you can invest in a stock with a 6% return? The money goes to better use if it is invested. (Note that most investments count as taxable income, so you have to factor taxes into your effective rate of return.) The caveat to this is that most investments have at least some risk associated with them. (Stocks don't always go up.) You have to weigh this when deciding to invest vs pay down debts. Paying down the debt is more of a \"\"sure thing\"\". Another thing to consider: If you have a long-term loan (several years), paying extra principal on a loan early on can turn into a huge savings over the life of the loan, due to power of compound interest. Extra payments on a mortgage or student loan can be a wise move. Just make sure you are paying down the principal, not the interest! (And check for early repayment penalties.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f551e53748295c6ad4d75ae14a954b7a", "text": "First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caa58a3c723ea171bbb174a6b013af7c", "text": "\"Probably not what you want to hear, but: Open a savings account. Deposit a pre-determined amount every month. Write down what you are saving for in specific detail. Emergencies are injury, sickness, auto breakdowns, bail money, eviction, nasty stuff like that. If you are saving up for something fun, trip to Europe, car, etc. write that down. Do not take from the account for any other purpose. Avoid taking it out even in lesser emergencies if you can do so without incurring debt. Don't daydream about what you could do with it. It is not for that. It's purpose should be singular. Keep an extra, smaller amount for frivolous stuff in your main checking or a different savings. Use that for impulse buys, and if the impusle can't be afforded by that amount, train yourself to know \"\"can't\"\". I can't buy that, it's not in the budget. Not I shouldn't. I can't. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba50b477039636eafcbf36f884184668", "text": "This is pretty simple in theory, harder to do in practice. You will be surprised how quickly the debt will disappear. Doing these things will work, I know from experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e513341e209384d5bbea0f450c9ce437", "text": "An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
623107e8a8df735e97d91a4378e959de	How to find an optimum linear combination of various investments?	[ { "docid": "4b9b7a9442c2fc7ba68d446c2c09c18b", "text": "\"You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing \"\"negative risk\"\" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness: because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "db73a1b5b50cf731eb237e3122d18353", "text": "\"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "883c1dcbb0385662c5cdd009952764cc", "text": "Dollar Cost Averaging would be the likely balanced approach that I'd take. Depending on the size of the sum, I'd likely consider a minimum of 3 and at most 12 points to invest the funds to get them all working. While the sum may be large relative to my net worth, depending on overall scale and risk tolerance I could see doing it in a few rounds of purchasing or I could see taking an entire year to deploy the funds in case of something happening. I'd likely do monthly investments myself though others may go for getting more precise on things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5685b1ded2c93079cd5e6b11fdc85535", "text": "I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea037e297eea30bc449f3febfb1d4090", "text": "\"When you have multiple assets available and a risk-free asset (cash or borrowing) you will always end up blending them if you have a reasonable objective function. However, you seem to have constrained yourself to 100% investment. Combine that with the fact that you are considering only two assets and you can easily have a solution where only one asset is desired in the portfolio. The fact that you describe the US fund as \"\"dominating\"\" the forign fund indicates that this may be the case for you. Ordinarily diversification benefits the overall portfolio even if one asset \"\"dominates\"\" another but it may not in your special case. Notice that these funds are both already highly diversified, so all you are getting is cross-border diversification by getting more than one. That may be why you are getting the solution you are. I've seen a lot of suggested allocations that have weights similar to what you are using. Finding an optimal portfolio given a vector of expected returns and a covariance matrix is very easy, with some reliable results. Fancy models get pretty much the same kinds of answers as simple ones. However, getting a good covariance matrix is hard and getting a good expected return vector is all but impossible. Unfortunately portfolio results are very sensitive to these inputs. For that reason, most of us use portfolio theory to guide our intuition, but seldom do the math for our own portfolio. In any model you use, your weak link is the expected return and covariance. More sophisticated models don't usually help produce a more reasonable result. For that reason, your original strategy (80-20) sounds pretty good to me. Not sure why you are not diversifying outside of equities, but I suppose you have your reasons.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fce3ae5e1905a229985d4408016bf3", "text": "\"It includes whatever you want to do with your investment. At least initially, it's not so much a matter of calculating numbers as of introspective soul-searching. Identifying your investment objectives means asking yourself, \"\"Why do I want to invest?\"\" Then you gradually ask yourself more and more specific questions to narrow down your goals. (For instance, if your answer is something very general like \"\"To make money\"\", then you may start to ask yourself, \"\"How much money do I want?\"\", \"\"What will I want to use that money for?\"\", \"\"When will I want to use that money?\"\", etc.) Of course, not all objectives are realistic, so identifying objectives can also involve whittling down plans that are too grandiose. One thing that can be helpful is to first identify your financial objectives: that is, money you want to be able to have, and things you want to do with that money. Investment (in the sense of purchasing investment vehicles likes stocks or bonds) is only one way of achieving financial goals; other ways include working for a paycheck, starting your own business, etc. Once you identify your financial goals, you have a number of options for how to get that money, and you should consider how well suited each strategy is for each goal. For instance, for a financial goal like paying relatively small short-term expenses (e.g., your electric bill), investing would probably not be the first choice for how to do that, because: a) there may be easier ways to achieve that goal (e.g., ask for a raise, eat out less); and b) the kinds of investment that could achieve that goal may not be the best use of your money (e.g., because they have lower returns).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74ea18e3d9909a7d8434a44d78226db5", "text": "Failing some answers to my comment, I am going to make some assumptions: Based upon a quick review of this article I'd probably be in the Russell 2000 Value Index Fund (IWN). Quite simply it gives you broad market exposure so you can be diversified by purchasing one fund. One of the key success factors is starting, not if you pick the best fund at the onset. I can recall, 20 years ago being amazed (and it was quite a feat) at someone who was able to invest $400 per month. These days that won't get you to the ROTH maximum and smart 20 somethings are doing just that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43efa4f1ce571c7f5ce6531d28dfee39", "text": "\"There are two umbrellas in investing: active management and passive management. Passive management is based on the idea \"\"you can't beat the market.\"\" Passive investors believe in the efficient markets hypothesis: \"\"the market interprets all information about an asset, so price is equal to underlying value\"\". Another idea in this field is that there's a minimum risk associated with any given return. You can't increase your expected return without assuming more risk. To see it graphically: As expected return goes up, so does risk. If we stat with a portfolio of 100 bonds, then remove 30 bonds and add 30 stocks, we'll have a portfolio that's 70% bonds/30% stocks. Turns out that this makes expected return increase and lower risk because of diversification. Markowitz showed that you could reduce the overall portfolio risk by adding a riskier, but uncorrelated, asset! Basically, if your entire portfolio is US stocks, then you'll lose money whenever US stocks fall. But, if you have half US stocks, quarter US bonds, and quarter European stocks, then even if the US market tanks, half your portfolio will be unaffected (theoretically). Adding different types of uncorrelated assets can reduce risk and increase returns. Let's tie this all together. We should get a variety of stocks to reduce our risk, and we can't beat the market by security selection. Ideally, we ought to buy nearly every stock in the market so that So what's our solution? Why, the exchange traded fund (ETF) of course! An ETF is basically a bunch of stocks that trade as a single ticker symbol. For example, consider the SPDR S&P 500 (SPY). You can purchase a unit of \"\"SPY\"\" and it will move up/down proportional to the S&P 500. This gives us diversification among stocks, to prevent any significant downside while limiting our upside. How do we diversify across asset classes? Luckily, we can purchase ETF's for almost anything: Gold ETF's (commodities), US bond ETF's (domestic bonds), International stock ETFs, Intl. bonds ETFs, etc. So, we can buy ETF's to give us exposure to various asset classes, thus diversifying among asset classes and within each asset class. Determining what % of our portfolio to put in any given asset class is known as asset allocation and some people say up to 90% of portfolio returns can be determined by asset allocation. That pretty much sums up passive management. The idea is to buy ETFs across asset classes and just leave them. You can readjust your portfolio holdings periodically, but otherwise there is no rapid trading. Now the other umbrella is active management. The unifying idea is that you can generate superior returns by stock selection. Active investors reject the idea of efficient markets. A classic and time proven strategy is value investing. After the collapse of 07/08, bank stocks greatly fell, but all the other stocks fell with them. Some stocks worth $100 were selling for $50. Value investors quickly snapped up these stocks because they had a margin of safety. Even if the stock didn't go back to 100, it could go up to $80 or $90 eventually, and investors profit. The main ideas in value investing are: have a big margin of safety, look at a company's fundamentals (earnings, book value, etc), and see if it promises adequate return. Coke has tremendous earnings and it's a great company, but it's so large that you're never going to make 20% profits on it annually, because it just can't grow that fast. Another field of active investing is technical analysis. As opposed to the \"\"fundamental analysis\"\" of value investing, technical analysis involves looking at charts for patterns, and looking at stock history to determine future paths. Things like resistance points and trend lines also play a role. Technical analysts believe that stocks are just ticker symbols and that you can use guidelines to predict where they're headed. Another type of active investing is day trading. This basically involves buying and selling stocks every hour or every minute or just at a rapid pace. Day traders don't hold onto investments for very long, and are always trying to predict the market in the short term and take advantage of it. Many individual investors are also day traders. The other question is, how do you choose a strategy? The short answer is: pick whatever works for you. The long answer is: Day trading and technical analysis is a lot of luck. If there are consistent systems for trading , then people are keeping them secret, because there is no book that you can read and become a consistent trader. High frequency trading (HFT) is an area where people basically mint money, but it s more technology and less actual investing, and would not be categorized as day trading. Benjamin Graham once said: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. Value investing will work because there's evidence for it throughout history, but you need a certain temperament for it and most people don't have that. Furthermore, it takes a lot of time to adequately study stocks, and people with day jobs can't devote that kind of time. So there you have it. This is my opinion and by no means definitive, but I hope you have a starting point to continue your study. I included the theory in the beginning because there are too many monkeys on CNBC and the news who just don't understand fundamental economics and finance, and there's no sense in applying a theory until you can understand why it works and when it doesn't.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d", "text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "120d3a55e9a0033859dcfe02e5756f69", "text": "You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc774863ed13c1d2f406183d15b26019", "text": "Quick and dirty paper but pretty interesting.. I'm not in Portfolio Management but I probably would have ended up at the modal number as well. I don't know the subject deeply enough to answer my own question, but is the bias always toward underestimation of variance? Or is that a complex of the way the problem was set up? Another question I have for those in investment management; Would this impact asset allocation?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a03c953af7e493438d0b7e0261d42eb", "text": "\"Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like \"\"normalized\"\" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34ff158b6ef5069454476b94d3c6f49b", "text": "Okay, I think I managed to find the precise answer to this problem! It involves solving a non-linear exponential equation, but I also found a good approximate solution using the truncated Taylor series. See below for a spreadsheet you can use. Let's start by defining the growth factors per period, for money in the bank and money invested: Now, let S be the amount ready to be invested after n+1 periods; so the first of that money has earned interest for n periods. That is, The key step to solve the problem was to fix the total number of periods considered. So let's introduce a new variable: t = the total number of time periods elapsed So if money is ready to invest every n+1 periods, there will be t/(n+1) separate investments, and the future value of the investments will be: This formula is exact in the case of integer t and n, and a good approximation when t and n are not integers. Substituting S, we get the version of the formula which explicitly depends on n: Fortunately, only a couple of terms in FV depend on n, so we can find the derivative after some effort: Equating the derivative to zero, we can remove the denominator, and assuming t is greater than zero, we can divide by the constant ( 1-G t ): To simplify the equation, we can define some extra constants: Then, we can define a function f(n) and write the equation as: Note that α, β, γ, G, and R are all constant. From here there are two options: Use Newton's method or another numerical method for finding the positive root of f(n). This can be done in a number of software packages like MATLAB, Octave, etc, or by using a graphics calculator. Solve approximately using a truncated Taylor series polynomial. I will use this method here. The Taylor series of f(n), centred around n=0, is: Truncating the series to the first three terms, we get a quadratic polynomial (with constant coefficients): Using R, G, α, β and γ defined above, let c0, c1 and c2 be the coefficients of the truncated Taylor series for f(n): Then, n should be rounded to the nearest whole number. To be certain, check the values above and below n using the formula for FV. Using the example from the question: For example, I might put aside $100 every week to invest into a stock with an expected growth of 9% p.a., but brokerage fees are $10/trade. For how many weeks should I accumulate the $100 before investing, if I can put it in my high-interest bank account at 4% p.a. until then? Using Newton's method to find roots of f(n) above, we get n = 14.004. Using the closed-form approximate solution, we get n = 14.082. Checking this against the FV with t = 1680 (evenly divisible by each n + 1 tested): Therefore, you should wait for n = 14 periods, keeping that money in the bank, investing it together with the money in the next period (so you will make an investment every 14 + 1 = 15 weeks.) Here's one way to implement the above solution with a spreadsheet. StackExchange doesn't allow tables in their syntax at this time, so I'll show a screenshot of the formulae and columns you can copy and paste: Formulae: Copy and paste column A: Copy and paste column B: Results: Remember, n is the number of periods to accumulate money in the bank. So you will want to invest every n+1 weeks; in this case, every 15 weeks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2ef4b2ccfc7d4cf242313750d63b89c", "text": "I learned most of this stuff from 3 textbooks in school probably totaling $900 between the 3. I imagine you don't want to spend the cash on that. I would suggest finding a source online. A lot of the surface level stuff you are looking for can be found online on websites like Investopedia. They are a great resource and are free usually.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cedfdaf74a6b62e2c8d8004af049661d", "text": "Determine an investment strategy and that will likely answer this for you. Different people have different approaches and you need to determine for yourself what buy and sell criteria you want to have. Again, depending on the strategy there can be a wide range here as some may trade index funds though this can backfire in some cases. In others, there can be a lot of buy and hold if one finds an index fund to hold forever which depending on the strategy is possible. Returns can vary widely as an index can be everything from buying gold stocks in Russia to investing in short-term Treasuries as there are many different indices as any given market can have an index which could be stocks, bonds, a combination of the two or something else in some cases so please consider asset allocation, types of accounts, risk tolerance and time horizon in making decisions or consider using a financial planner to assist in drawing up a plan with allocations and how frequently you want to rebalance as my suggestion here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee81a90148d0f963fa707fa0e5631b6c", "text": "\"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bb2bba34a4edd69e5c436ef4c4682c7c	What is the best way to get cash from my retirement accounts for a home down payment?	[ { "docid": "985b9e21c615e3610c4f8c94212c7da3", "text": "You can withdraw the contributions you made to Roth IRA tax free. Any withdrawals from Roth IRA count first towards the contributions, then conversions, and only then towards the gains which are taxable. You can also withdraw up to $10000 of the taxable portion penalty free (from either the Traditional IRA or the Roth IRA, or the combination of both) if it is applied towards the purchase of your first primary residence (i.e.: you don't own a place yet, and you're buying your first home, which will become your primary residence). That said, however, I cannot see how you can buy a $250K house. You didn't say anything about your income, but just the cash needed for the down-payment will essentially leave you naked and broke. Consider what happens if you have an emergency, out of a job for a couple of months, or something else of that kind. It is generally advised to have enough cash liquid savings to keep you afloat for at least half a year (including mortgage payments, necessities and whatever expenses you need to spend to get back on track - job searching, medical, moving, etc). It doesn't look like you're anywhere near that. Remember, many bankruptcies are happening because of the cash-flow problem, not the actual ability to repay debts on the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b0019ab3a4683b725b726fef151919e7", "text": "Given that utilizing all the funds available to you drains your retirement and leaves you with very little cushion for unforeseen events (as already noted), it may be best to use a smaller amount for closing and just deal with the PMI for a couple years. PMI is likely less than the taxes/penalties incurred from withdrawing a full 20% + closing costs. Let alone the lost earning on the accounts (above your mortgage interest rate); but personally I think the stability of significant home equity is worth more than anticipated stock gains. I would recommend pulling enough to buy the house comfortably without dipping too deeply in any one area, while still paying down your balance to where you can eliminate PMI quickly (say 2-3 years). Your limits for each account are approximately: Roth IRAs: Traditional IRAs: Brokerage (non-retirement): Checking: Things to consider: If you are current on your payments, you can request PMI removal once your loan-to-value drops below 80% - it also terminates automatically when it is scheduled to drop below 78% (not if it actually has). Many loans have a 2 year minimum PMI period though, regardless of your Loan To Value (LTV) changes. LTV changes could be from:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e923a31cded2ec81bd594a5894386191", "text": "The best way to get cash from retirement is to not do it. Leave the retirement savings alone. Start saving for house down payment. Look for ways to squirrel away money for that down payment. Consider payment plus insurance, taxes, and maintenance costs. If all that comes in less than a rental, you're probably better off buying. Most likely it will not. Make sure that when you go to buy, you have 20% down, AND an emergency fund that will cover you for 3 months of expenses at the new, higher, rate. Hint, that'll probably be in excess of 10k based on a single person with a 1.5-2k a month mortgage, plus utilities and food. And as a home owner, you will have a lot of things for which that emergency fund will come in handy. It's a matter of when, not if. Consider, 5k for a new roof, 6k for a hvac system, 1.5k for exterior paint, 500 for the plumber, 750 for pest control, 250 to have the tree removed that fell in a storm. 1000 for a new fridge. 500 for a new water heater. 1200 for washer and dryer. ALL of these are periodic costs, and they all able to fail before they're supposed to.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3837c050a34ff81e897cb5b055946070", "text": "\"In your situation, you probably should not cash in your IRA and 401(k). A good mortgage lender will want to see that you have \"\"reserves\"\" -- money that you could fall back on if you hit a very rough patch. Your current savings and retirement accounts might add up to a suitable reserve. You might want to do something like this instead: By the way, instead of cashing in a 401(k), it is usually better to: This method avoids large tax penalties, and encourages you to rebuild your 401(k). Unfortunately, your large debt balances might prevent you from getting the PLOC. But even in the worst case scenario (where you cannot use a PLOC to pay off a 401(k) balloon payment), it postpones the tax hit until after the balloon payment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990ada206b3efd2ac13b0f6e35791830", "text": "Long ago when I was applying for my first mortgage I had to list all my income and assets. At the time I had some US Savings Bonds from payroll deduction. I asked about them. The loan officer told me that unless I was willing/planning on selling them to make the down payment, they were immaterial to the loan application. So unless you have a habit of turning RSUs into cash, or are willing to do so for the down payment, it is no different from having money in a 401K or IRA: the restrictions on selling them make them illiquid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c341364afeab9a693ed255b3f300d17", "text": "\"This is the meat of your potato question. The rephrasing of the question to a lending/real estate executive such as myself, I'd ask, what's the scenario? \"\"I would say you're looking for an Owner Occupied, Super Jumbo Loan with 20% Down or $360K down on the purchase price, $1.8 mil purchase price, Loan Amount is ~$1.45 mil. Fico is strong (assumption). If this is your scenario, please see image. Yellow is important, more debt increases your backend-DTI which is not good for the deal. As long as it's less than 35%, you're okay. Can someone do this loan, the short answer is yes. It's smart that you want to keep more cash on hand. Which is understandable, if the price of the property declines, you've lost your shirt and your down payment, then it will take close to 10 years to recover your down. Consider that you are buying at a peak in real estate prices. Prices can't go up more than they are now. Consider that properties peaked in 2006, cooled in 2007, and crashed in 2008. Properties declined for more than 25-45% in 2008; regardless of your reasons of not wanting to come to the full 40% down, it's a bit smarter to hold on to cash for other investments purposes. Just incase a recession does hit. In the end, if you do the deal-You'll pay more in points, a higher rate compared to the 40% down scenario, the origination fee would increase slightly but you'll keep your money on hand to invest elsewhere, perhaps some units that can help with the cashflow of your home. I've highlighted in yellow what the most important factors that will be affected on a lower down payment. If your debt is low or zero, and income is as high as the scenario, with a fico score of at least 680, you can do the deal all day long. These deals are not uncommon in today's market. Rate will vary. Don't pay attention to the rate, the rate will fluctuate based on many variables, but it's a high figure to give you an idea on total cost and monthly payment for qualification purposes, also to look at the DTI requirement for cash/debt. See Image below:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "691dde8e0a01752a6c038e804a4f012b", "text": "\"I'd not heard of being able to withdraw penalty free before. So I looked it up. It might be penalty free, but it's not tax free. So if your marginal tax rate is 25%, and you withdraw 10,000 from a regular IRA, 1/4 of the money will have to come from taxes. Personally, unless you're in a huge hurry to buy the best screaming deal ever seen in your jurisdiction, I'd not touch the 401k... but I would slow down 401k investing to be the minimum required to maximize the match, and throw the rest to saving for the house. Also, your pronouns are \"\"I,\"\" not \"\"We.\"\" If you'd like to be married, I would put off buying a home further, in case your future spouse doesn't like the home you pick.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b2d016c1627df5c6be74eaa6bc3075b", "text": "It looks like with the sale of your current home you have enough liquidity to obtain credit on the best terms without tapping your wife's IRA. The biggest factor to consider is the deduction on mortgage interest which reduces the effective interest on your mortgage significantly, particularly as you jump into a higher tax bracket. Along these lines, deferred retirement savings should have a higher priority than paying down the mortgage or your student loans. Student loans should probably be your biggest priority to pay down. With the mortgage deduction, a 4% rate becomes effectively a 3.4% rate if you are in the 15% bracket, but as low as 2.6% effective rate if you are in the 35% bracket. Both of these are lower than the 3.5% rate that you can get on the student loans after refinancing. This also assumes you aren't hit with the AMT. This is probably worth the cost of a quick consultation with a tax professional to go over these options and how they affect your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d102521380188ac82074b1f3dd94efda", "text": "There is a 3rd option: take the cash back offer, but get the money from a auto loan from your bank or credit union. The loan will only be for. $22,500 which can still be a better deal than option B. Of course the monthly payment can make it harder to qualify for the mortgage. Using the MS Excel goal seek tool and the pmt() function: will make the total payment equal to 24K. Both numbers are well above the rates charged by my credit union so option C would be cheaper than option B.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1858b3c8010825e42d07a2ea2b053640", "text": "why not ask a fee only financial adviser? Contact a local adviser and ask how much they will charge to work through the process. The options aren't as complex as they seem. The general idea is to first figure out what you can afford each month. This is a generally straight forward calculation. Then figure out the costs that are specific to your area, e.g property taxes. Figure out how much of a down payment /closing costs you can gather. Then start with your local bank or credit union. The number of options for mortgages will not be as complex if you already know how much you can afford and how much cash you can bring to the transaction. A simple table can be easily created based on what you can afford each month, how much cash you have, and the rates currently available. The bank will have a way to estimate the costs of each option as part of the required disclosures. Another source of good info can be a highly regarded local real estate agent. Focus on one that will represent you as a purchaser. They want you to be able to buy a house. While they do have a bias, they want a commission, most of it is eliminated if you know how much you can afford before you meet with them. They will know all the government programs that can make the monthly costs or closing costs cheaper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3c60e0220312ea89289250d4063e229", "text": "In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0f7843384a589ac55376dcf6fdab780", "text": "I'll summarize here our discussion in the comments. First thing to remember is that you can only deposit up to $6K/year into the Roth IRA, you cannot seed it with some large amount (unless its a rollover). Second thing to remember is that you can only qualify 10K distribution for the home purchase. With that in mind, it seems that you'll have to have extremly high returns to make use of the maximum tax benefit (15-20% of the 10K). Non-qualified distributions will be taxed at ordinary income rates + 10% penalty, so if you can't qualify the distribution, instead of saving money on taxes, you'll end up paying twice as much as you would have without the IRA. Also, keep in mind that reporting of the distributions and justifying the qualifications might require assistance of a tax preparer, which will also reduce your savings. Bottom line, IMHO, you'll end up with a wash or very insignificant savings (compared to the magnitude of the home purchase costs) at best, which renders the whole thing kindof wastefull.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1523b155b7a65d32aa8df6599e2e5fd1", "text": "I'd keep the risk inside the well-funded retirement accounts. Outside those accounts, I'd save to have a proper emergency fund, not based on today's expenses, but on expenses post house. The rest, I'd save toward the downpayment. 20% down, with a reserve for the spending that comes with a home purchase. It's my opinion that 3-5 years isn't enough to put this money at risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "401c061194dac9da8592747cd33c6a11", "text": "With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a353efc223d62d20b3c581f4f6166df3", "text": "Drawing down from a nest egg is predominately dealing with 3 issues: The much used withdrawal amount used to not deplete your principal is 4%. Some may argue this is too much or not enough but it is regarded as a standard amount. Seeing that you have $500k you can pull about $20k per year using this drawdown percentage. If you can live on $20k then you are set. If not you should build up this nest egg.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6717866315a55e750928ea6245ad3f8b", "text": "I don't quite understand your thought process here. First, in a tax-advantaged retirement account you are NOT allowed to engage in a transaction with yourself. If you just want to run a business and be able to write off expenses, how is using the self-directed IRA relevant? You can either buy the condo using your tax-advantaged account and rent it out to regular tenants. Or you buy the condo yourself using your own money and then operate your business so you can deduct business expenses from doing so. 401k's allow you to take a loan out of it, so you can look into that as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1472c65dc003b8301b259da45632449", "text": "Have you changed how you handle fund distributions? While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase. While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day. I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year. Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now. Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "234c54943d0d639b3171953cad2c383d", "text": "Use some form of escrow agent: Some freelancer sites provide payment escrow services (e.g. E-Lance). In this system the client puts money in escrow for the project in advance and then when they accept the project it forwards the payment to the provider. Progress Payments Arrange a progress payment approach with the client where they pay at certain milestones rather than a single payment at the end of the project. Ideally you would have them pre-pay for each milestone before you start work on it. However, you could ask for payment after each milestone, which might be easier to sell to your client. It does leave some risk, but minimizes that risk somewhat.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2f0ec92fbc18c7cb388a9fbca5919671	Snowball debt or pay off a large amount?	[ { "docid": "c8909e1d25a51dfa413145f2649032ed", "text": "There are some calculators that you can use to figure out the best approach, such as this one by CNN. But in general the rule of thumb tends to be the following: For the purposes of the Best Buy card, I would put it up there at number one so you don't get hit with the deferred interest. No point in giving them more money if you can pay them before the end of the cycle. Next, I would look at what you have for emergency savings, if you have an account established and that is at a comfortable number than putting the money towards the Citi card might be good, otherwise, split part of the money between savings and the credit cards. If an emergency pops up you don't want to dig a deeper hole because you can't pay for something with cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f013b3d5ac8ab4ff1e7112953711457", "text": "\"Pay the Best Buy first. Most of these \"\"Do not pay until...\"\" deals require you to retire the entire debt by the deadline, or they will charge you deferred interest for the entire period. So, if this was a six-month deal, they're going to hit you for an extra $300 in December.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1ab358564480177021f5fb532b66329", "text": "I want to know if I cut the citi card in half for example, how much would the min payment go down? If you goal is to become debt-free, the minimum payment shouldn't matter. Even if the minimum payment goes down, continue your current payment amount (or more, if you can afford it) until the balance is paid off. Paying the minimum will just keep you in debt longer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed839a3ba9df01882ccb3059ef3482d4", "text": "Pay the highest rate debt first, it's as simple as that. When that debt is paid (the 24% card in this case) pay off the next one. As far as having an emergency fund is concerned, I consider it a second priority. If one owes 24% money, that $2000 emergency fund is costing $480/yr. Ouch. Avoid the behaviors that got you into debt in the first place, and pay the cards off as fast as you can. When you have no balance, start to save, first into the emergency account, then toward retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1dcb51eea28cb87232abb8c4bf7876e2", "text": "\"My advice: IMO, all things being somewhat equal, you should always try to retire debts as quickly as possible in most cases, so start with the small cases. The method of calculating credit card interest is written on the statement. Usually it is \"\"average daily balance method\"\". Don't sweat the details. Just pay the things off.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71486c3af9f2152dba6dc27d4088a4a3", "text": "\"Basically, your CC is (if normal) compounded monthly, based on a yearly APR. To calculate the amount of interest you'd pay on each of these accounts in a year, pull up a spreadsheet like Office Excel. Put in your current balance, then multiply it by the annual interest rate divided by 12, and add that quantity to the balance. Subtract any payment you make, and the result is your new balance. You can project this out for several months to get a good estimate of what you'll pay; in accounting or finance terms, what you're creating is an \"\"amortization table\"\". So, with a $10,000 balance, at 13.99% interest and making payments of $200/mo, the amortization table for one year's payments might look like: As you can see, $200 isn't paying down this card very quickly. In one year, you will have paid $2,400, of which $1,332.25 went straight into the bank's pockets in interest charges, reducing your balance by only $1,067.75. Up the payments to $300/mo, and in 1 year you will have paid $3,600, and only been charged $1,252.24 in interest, so you'll have reduced your balance by $2,347.76 to only $7,652.24, which further reduces interest charges down the line. You can track the differences in the Excel sheet and play \"\"what-ifs\"\" very easily to see the ramifications of spending your $5,000 in various ways. Understand that although, for instance, 13.99% may be your base interest rate, if the account has become delinquent, or you made any cash advances or balance transfers, higher or lower interest rates may be charged on a portion of the balance or the entire balance, depending on what's going on with your account; a balance transfer may get 0% interest for a year, then 19.99% interest after that if not paid off. Cash advances are ALWAYS charged at exorbitantly high rates, up to 40% APR. Most credit card bills will include what may be called an \"\"effective APR\"\", which is a weighted average APR of all the various sub-balances of your account and the interest rates they currently have. Understand that your payment first pays off interest accrued during the past cycle, then pays down the principal on the highest-interest portion of the balance first, so if you have made a balance transfer to another card and are using that card for purchases, the only way to avoid interest on the transfer at the post-incentive rates is to pay off the ENTIRE balance in a year. The minimum payment on a credit card USED to be just the amount of accrued interest or sometimes even less; if you paid only the minimum payment, the balance would never decrease (and may increase). In the wake of the 2008 credit crisis, most banks now enforce a higher minimum payment such that you would pay off the balance in between 3 and 5 years by making only minimum payments. This isn't strictly required AFAIK, but because banks ARE required by the CARD Act to disclose the payoff period at the minimum payment (which would be \"\"never\"\" under most previous policies), the higher minimum payments give cardholders hope that as long as they make the minimum payments and don't charge any more to the card, they will get back to zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "454546ab9fca009118349aeefdb5efa2", "text": "You've already received good advice here, pay off the highest rate card first, in this case the Best Buy card. I completely agree. To answer your question about the minimum payment, I can't guarantee that this is how Citi does it on your particular card, but several online calculators seem to use the following formula. Minimum Payment = Fees + (APR / 12) x Balance + 1% x Balance. I plugged in your numbers and got really close to the minimum payment you mentioned. I ran calculations for balances of 8,500 and 6,500 and got payments of $184 and $141. You can use this calculator to plug in some numbers for yourself. I found the formula on this page along with a reference stating that Citi uses the formula. Edited to Add: As Bruce Alderman mentioned in his answer, it's probably not a good idea to just pay the minimum. That calculator I linked to shows the difference between paying the minimum and even a small amount ($50 or so) more than the minimum every month. Something like the difference between 3 and 10 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bcdda60f3b4d3e30dc4ab0a0479d764", "text": "\"Dave Ramsey would tell you to pay the smallest debt off first, regardless of interest rate, to build momentum for your debt snowball. Doing so also gives you some \"\"wins\"\" sooner than later in the goal of becoming debt free.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2df105abfd7365139f75f7f5dd60200b", "text": "First, make sure you have some money in a savings account that you can use instead of credit cards for making future purchases that go beyond what you have in your checking account. $1000 is a good amount to start with, so just take that out of the $5000. Then pay off the Best Buy card. You shouldn't be worried about the minimum payment. Determine what you can pay per month (say, $400), and take the minimum payments out of that. Then choose one card to get the rest of your $400, plus the remaining $1500 of your $5000. This should be the highest-interest card, mathematically, but it may or may not be your best choice; it depends on your personality. Some people get a psychological lift out of seeing debts disappear, and it gives them more motivation to keep going. Those people may be better served by paying off the smallest debts first, to get them out of the way. I'm an INTP, so it bothers me more to think that I'll be paying a little more in interest over the long term by taking that route.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03317b5968a3d8e951a1c07d22caa8e6", "text": "I agree with the Dave Ramsey method as well. If you don't have $1k in the bank already, do that. Total up the smaller debts and the best buy card. if they are $4k all together, then pay them off. Don't get caught up in keeping the smaller one around because they are at zero percent. If they exceed $4k, then payoff the interest bomb best buy card, then pay off the smaller ones, starting with the smaller balance. That is the only tweak I will make here. Dropping any amount into the Citi balance is pointless because it only reduces the amount, not the total number of hands reaching into your bank account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7c968fca500d16aa2342cde86daa689b", "text": "Finding a way to pay down credit debt is important, because you're probably paying in the high teens in APR. 401k should be last resort. Have you researched other options? E.g loan consolidation If you don't mind me asking, how did you get that far in debt?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf0a064ab5b96990b812cd6034428c78", "text": "Pay it all off now before you change your mind. Having an emergency fund is important but that assumes you'll have the discipline to leave it alone. Obviously, you don't or you wouldn't have amassed $36k in cc debt. Regardless of the rates, your icome or any other factor, that's just way too much and a pretty good indication that you've got problems managing money. Pay them off now while you still can!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a9dd6bae4dd9b0df552ce4ddd556727", "text": "You need to pay off the entire balance of 7450 as soon as possible. This should be your primary financial goal at this point above anything else. A basic structure that you can follow is this: Is the £1500 balance with the 39.9% interest rate the obvious starting point here? Yes, that is fine. But all the cards and overdraft debts need to be treated with the same urgency! What are the prospects for improving my credit score in say the next 6-12 months enough to get a 0% balance transfer or loan for consolidation? This should not be a primary concern of yours if you want to move on with your financial life. Debt consolidation will not help you achieve the goals you have described (home ownership, financial stability). If you follow the advice here, by the time you get to the point of being eligible, you may not see enough savings in interest to make it worth the hassle. Focus on the hard stuff and pay off the balances. Is that realistic, or am I looking at a longer term struggle? You are looking at a significant struggle. If it was easy you would not be asking this question! The length of time will be determined by your choices: how aggressively you will cut your lifestyle, take on extra jobs, and place additional payments on your debt. By being that extreme, you will actually start to see progress, which will be encouraging. If you go in half-committed, your progress will show as much and it will be demotivating. Much of your success will hinge on your mental and emotional toughness to push through the hard work of delaying pleasure and paying off these balances. That is just my personal experience, so you can take it or leave it. :) The credit score will take care of itself if you follow this method, so don't worry about it. Good Luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3768cc1c5de30dd38b7431f979761f30", "text": "Should I pay off the credit cards now or do the monthly payments thing? It need not be a binary choice; you could take the middle ground. Assuming that an emergency fund of $10-15k is sufficient, you could pay off one credit card and do the monthly payment for the other cards. With one card cleared, you may feel better. I would choose to clear the card with the highest interest, followed by the smallest debt first as it's the mathematically optimum way. I should also let you know that there's this debt-snowball method which is not as optimum but has some valid reasons for existing. Choose the optimum way if you're financially disciplined. p.s. I'm not trained financially, nor am I in the industry. Just my two cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea1b291142d4c04a769faa95f7747258", "text": "When considering whether to pay off the student loan, note that, because you work for a non-profit, some or all of that debt may be forgiven after 10 years under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. I would also like to be slightly contrarian on the main question. I like having lots of savings and little debt as much as the next person. But, unless you have been planning your life with the expectation that you would receive this bequest, it is a windfall. If you weren't already doing an excellent job of saving for emergencies and retirement, or had a lot of consumer debt, I'd say you should use the money to stabilize your finances before doing anything else. But your finances do seem stable. So take some of the windfall and do something nice with it. Travel to the ancestral home of your late grandmother. Endow a small scholarship in her memory. Buy some small luxury that you could never manage on your own salary. I'm not suggesting you spend it all, but using 20% of it on something otherwise out of reach will give you good memories while still leaving you materially better off. Saving for the future is important. Paying off debt is important. Enjoying life when you can is also important. Balance is everything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77a2f2f2ddf5b9c05f40a5394bbf8e9f", "text": "\"But in the debt-payoff-first scenario, I'd be wiping out my debt in two years. It would take several more years if I were to just pay the minimums and put the extra money toward investing instead. Right. The idea is that in 2 years, you are likely to have more in the savings/stock account than you owe on the loan. But. The range of returns for X years has a smaller standard deviation the greater X is. e.g. any year has about a 1 in 3 chance of being negative. A 10 year period had a negative return (-1% CAGR) in the '00s recently, but the 15 year return even around that decade would have been successful. Jan 1 '96 - Dec 31 2010 returned 6.76% CAGR, Jan 1 2001 - Dec 31 2015 returned 4.96% CAGR. This tells you that the time frame is as important as your sleep factor. Your 2 years? I'd just kill the loans. A 10-15 year horizon? I'd ask how you \"\"feel\"\" about that debt. The cost of going after a potential higher return may not be worth the risk to many. For some, it's fine. I retired, with a mortgage still in place, but the money in my 401(k) that could have paid off the mortgage is now about twice the remaining balance. So I sleep like a baby. In the end, I'm a fan of investing for the long term vs paying off low rate debt, but it's a choice based on the individual.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9604ecfe11c08a8eb7b0a2d8f61001e7", "text": "I would go with your alternative idea: get rid of the debt as fast as possible. You have $32k of debt. It's a lot, but with your new $90k salary, do you think you could get rid of it all in 12 months? See if you can make that happen. Once the debt is gone, you'll be in a position to invest as much as you want and keep all your gains. You are worried about sacrificing future money in your investments, but if you eliminate the debt over the next year, this will be minimized. Just lose the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9e79c3970a82e9d968dd3eaf9229e54", "text": "\"This is the kind of scenario addressed by Reddit's /r/personalfinance Prime Directive, or \"\"I have $X, what should I do with it?\"\" It follows a fairly linear flowchart for personal spending beginning with a budget and essential costs. The gist of the flowchart is to cover your most immediate costs and risks first, while also maximizing your benefits. It sounds like you would fall somewhere around steps 1 and 3. (Step 2 won't apply since this is not pretax income.) If you don't already have at least $1000 reserved in an emergency fund, that's a great place to start. After that, you'll want to use the rest to pay down your debt. Your credit card debt is very high interest and should be treated as a financial emergency. Besides the balance of your gift, you may want to throw whatever other funds you have saved beyond one month's expenses at this problem. As far as which card, since you have multiple debts you're faced with the classic choice of which payoff method to use: snowball (lowest balance first) or avalanche (highest interest rate first). Avalanche is more financially optimal but less immediately gratifying. Personally, since your 26% APR debt is so large and so high interest, I would recommend focusing every available penny on that card until it is paid off, and then never use it again. Again, per the flowchart, that means using everything left over after steps 0-2 are fulfilled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29c366b66bc9ac78b881ee6be8d430e3", "text": "That interest rate (13%) is steep, and the balloon payment will have him paying more interest longer. Investing the difference is a risky proposition because past performance of an investment is no guarantee of future performance. Is taking that risk worth netting 2%? Not for me, but you must answer that last question for yourself. To your edit: How disruptive would losing the car and/or getting negative marks on your credit be? If you can quantify that in dollars then you have your answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50bd800bc724032df643034909cc34a6", "text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6236c533a709b202a826720071e1f5a7", "text": "\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e56cdc6054207dc13936e466cdbf7d33", "text": "\"Bankruptcy should be your last option, and you will find that BK will not resolve most of your problems, and create many more problems. There are two kinds of BK that are available to the average person, Ch13 debt repayment and Ch7 liquidation. Both have severe repercussions and lasting effects on your credit (7-10 years, after discharge). And the calculations required under the 2005 BAPCPA are complex and may require help to understand. Ch7 liquidation is the more severe course, and the trustee would liquidate assets that exceed exemptions (vary by state) to pay your creditors. Ch13 debt repayment is hard, and only 20-25% of those who pursue that route complete the debt repayment plan. Your credit score for either course would suffer greatly (200-250 points) and would remain reduced for years, especially since you would have to rebuild credit. And the law is flawed both in design and execution as there is no reward for successful debt repayment, few finish their repayment plan (20-25%), the mean recovery for unsecured creditors in repayment is zero (thus does not help creditors), and leaves the debtor with damaged credit for years (not a fresh start). Although you may have made some decisions that have placed you in a difficult position, you can find solutions to resolve these problems. You may find that simply learning to make better choices will improve your situation. Take a financial education course (such as the Dave Ramsey course), and learn how to budget, and make better choices. The LearnVest website offers a simple way to budget by dividing budgeting into only three (3) categories with suggested percentages for each, essentials (<50%), financial priorities (>20%), and lifestyle (<30%). The damage to your credit from the derogatory effects of BK would linger for years, but the damage from poor payment history declines much quicker, and loses most of the effect after 2 years (and should you keep the accounts open, leaves you with good history and longer account history), thus the effects decline to minimal after as little as 2 years of good behavior/payment history. Make a plan that prioritizes the debts, and how you will resolve the problem, and work the plan. Based upon the income and debts you mention, the situation you have may not be as bad as it appears. You may be getting bad advice, especially from a debt settlement company that might be more interested in their fees than in your problem. Since you \"\"want to play fair and continue with payments, but when people start to get greedy like this I am ready to just stop caring\"\", you really need two things, a plan, and a friend, someone who you can talk to honestly and openly, and who can support you as you work through the plan you make. Since you \"\"would prefer the option that will give me the most peace of mind and allow me to start saving money as soon as possible\"\", you need to find an approach that fits your goals. Your statement that you \"\"don't plan on ever using credit again\"\", fits with the Dave Ramsey philosophy and resonates with many of us who have learned that those who grant credit are often harsh masters. Now that you have provided more information, the advice below expands upon the above reflecting upon your specific situation. Since you make $62K/year, you may be close to the median income, and the BAPCPA (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) has a presumption of abuse for filing Ch7 when you have above median income (for your state, check the law). As you may be pushed into Ch13 debt repayment anyway, examine what you could do to repay the debt (over 5 years, 60 months, as that would be a Ch13 repayment duration). Since you have $8K of revolving (unsecured?) debt, that would be repaid in Ch13 over 60 months at about $133/month (no interest), but you would also be paying 10% to the trustee. There might be some portion of your auto debt which is unsecured, and also be repaid unsecured, suppose that is $3000. That would add another $50/month to the plan. The car could be repaid over 60 months (including interest), so you might be repaying $300/month for the car (estimate), although the payment could be higher or lower depending upon how much of the value of the car is unsecured. The trustee might object that the car is too expensive (depends upon the value, and the trustee), and require be liquidated. Since BK excludes relief for student loans, you might find yourself paying the student loans at the same payment. Your $62K income suggests that you have about $4200/month (guess, after taxes). The mortgage payment is higher than 25% ($1050-1100 would be ideal for your income). But after your mortgage payment you should still have about $3900. Even with $300 for credit card debt, $500 for car, and $400 for student loans (guessing), that leaves $2700 for essentials (utilities, food), lifestyle (cellphone, entertainment), and savings. You might find a friend who is good at budgeting who would be willing to help you craft a budget and be your \"\"responsibility partner\"\" to help you stick to the budget. Here is a sample plan (your mileage may vary), Essentials (50%, $2100): $2180 Financial (30%, 1230): $1250 Lifestyle (20%, 840): $500 (pick up slack here, as you have high debt load)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d453145400d9d428da443f54afdef4f", "text": "\"Given the exact formula that goes into the 'Fair Issac\"\" calculation is a closely guarded trade secret, AND that each agency has their own formula, I'm not sure there's really any 100% for sure authoritative answer to the question in terms of which option would be best. There are a lot of balancing factors, like how long you've had accounts, payment history over time, etc. Stuff that is known to HURT a score can include things like closing a longstanding account. If you have a very low interest loan (like some car companies offer now and then) I'd just make the normal payments. If you have something at a higher interest rate, especially above 6-7%, then I'd worry less about credit score and more about how much I'm going to pay in interest and pay it off as rapidly as I could. The big key is 'never pay late' more than anything else, Followed by how much of your debt capacity is used (which paying down any account, loan or credit card, will help), and long standing relationships (length of history) See this (approximate) chart and notice that any early payoff is basically going lower your 'capacity used', possibly reduce the types of credit used (if it's the last loan of that type), all of which should help your score.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da8c84c95dbf3d06800a6611c57b1596", "text": "\"The original question was aimed at early payment on a student loan at 6%. Let's look at some numbers. Note, the actual numbers were much lower, I've increased the debt to a level that's more typical, as well as more likely to keep the borrower worried, and \"\"up at night.\"\" On a $50K loan, we see 2 potential payoffs. A 6 year accelerated payoff which requires $273.54 extra per month, and the original payoff, with a payment of $555.10. Next, I show the 6 year balance on the original loan terms, $23,636.44 which we would need to exceed in the 401(k) to consider we made the right choice. The last section reflects the 401(k) balance with different rates of return. I purposely offer a wide range of returns. Even if we had another 'lost decade' averaging -1%/yr, the 401(k) balance is more than 50% higher than the current loan debt. At a more reasonable 6% average, it's double. (Note: The $273.54 deposit should really be adjusted, adding 33% if one is in the 25% bracket, or 17.6% if 15% bracket. That opens the can of worms at withdrawal. But let me add, I coerced my sister to deposit to the match, while married and a 25%er. Divorced, and disabled, her withdrawals are penalty free, and $10K is tax free due to STD deduction and exemption.) Note: The chart and text above have been edited at the request of a member comment. What about an 18% credit card? Glad you asked - The same $50K debt. It's tough to imagine a worse situation. You budgeted and can afford $901, because that's the number for a 10 year payoff. Your spouse says she can grab a extra shift and add $239/mo to the plan, because that' the number to get to a 6 year payoff. The balance after 6 years if we stick to the 10 year plan? $30,669.82. The 401(k) balances at varying rates of return again appear above. A bit less dramatic, as that 18% is tough, but even at a negative return the 401(k) is still ahead. You are welcome to run the numbers, adjust deposits for your tax rate and same for withdrawals. You'll see -1% is still about break-even. To be fair, there are a number of variables, debt owed, original time for loan to be paid, rate of loan, rate of return assumed on the 401(k), amount of potential extra payment, and the 2 tax rates, going in, coming out. Combine a horrific loan rate (the 18%) with a longer payback (15+ years) and you can contrive a scenario where, in fact, even the matched funds have trouble keeping up. I'm not judging, but I believe it's fair to say that if one can't find a budget that allows them to pay their 18% debt over a 10 year period, they need more help that we can offer here. I'm only offering the math that shows the power of the matched deposit. From a comment below, the one warning I'd offer is regarding vesting. The matched funds may not be yours immediately. Companies are allowed to have a vesting schedule which means your right to this money may be tiered, at say, 20%/year from year 2-6, for example. It's a good idea to check how your plan handles this. On further reflection, the comments of David Wallace need to be understood. At zero return, the matched money will lag the 18% payment after 4 years. The reason my chart doesn't reflect that is the match from the deposits younger than 4 years is still making up for that potential loss. I'd maintain my advice, to grab the match regardless, as there are other factors involved, the more likely return of ~8%, the tax differential should one lose their job, and the hope that one would get their act together and pay the debt off faster.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348332ebd12750fb19b0752caded06c2", "text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
223eb8d5b1012c3f44d1ea26c102b340	Possibility to buy index funds and individual funds in a Canadian TFSA	[ { "docid": "aeb176a02d712dd802fd6804e23b1081", "text": "\"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "df646c5cb90d0c33490f645fff0422a4", "text": "\"For equities, buy direct from the transfer agent. You have to buy one full share at a minimum but after that dividend reinvestment is free. There are others like share builder and foliofn that let you buy fractional shares. As the other poster said their roster is limited so you cannot buy every ETF out there. With your example of not wanting to spend $200 I agree with the others that you should invest in a mutual fund. Vanguard will have every index fund you need and can invest as little as $50, as long as you sign up for a systematic investment draft from your bank. Plus vanguard typically has the lowest fees in the industry. The most important thing is to start investing as soon as possible and as regular as possible. \"\"Pay yourself first\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18b343396f408c52eeb072cc176ecc75", "text": "You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9b62d5f7e21cf3006c02be2d7e8dd46", "text": "\"Usually, the amswer to \"\"why sell it\"\" is \"\"to maintain the specific distribution balance, or to track the index, that this fund was designed to offer.\"\" A \"\"buy and hold\"\" fund could only buy when users are actively putting money into it. That limits their ability to follow those approaches. And I think there would be problems msking withdrawls/redeptions \"\"fair\"\", in terms of what shares are sold and how the costs for selling them are distributed, that don't arise for a single buy-and-hold investor. If you're willing to accept the limitations of the former, and can overcome the latter, it's an interesting idea... But note that one of the places index funds save money is that, since the composition of indexes changes rately, they are already operating mostly in buy-and-hold mode.It's unclear how much your variant would save. Worth exploring in greater depth, though. I think.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ca55b8facce5ce4bdb899ce505e1d9c", "text": "I think you need a diversified portfolio, and index funds can be a part of that. Make sure that you understand the composition of your funds and that they are in fact invested in different investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0ae68ed525f07cf53970454159f26a8", "text": "More importantly, index funds are denominated in specific currencies. You can't buy or sell an index, so it can be dimensionless. Anything you actually do to track the index involves real amounts of real money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3fa3b48b665dad5943843d32607325", "text": "You better buy an ETF that does the same, because it would be much cheaper than mutual fund (and probably much cheaper than doing it yourself and rebalancing to keep up with the index). Look at DIA for example. Neither buying the same amount of stocks nor buying for the same amount of money would be tracking the DJIE. The proportions are based on the market valuation of each of the companies in the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daccd8ca0d17624588d8df91bea8c332", "text": "One advantage not pointed out yet is that closed-end funds typically trade on stock exchanges, whereas mutual funds do not. This makes closed-end funds more accessible to some investors. I'm a Canadian, and this particular distinction matters to me. With my regular brokerage account, I can buy U.S. closed-end funds that trade on a stock exchange, but I cannot buy U.S. mutual funds, at least not without the added difficulty of somehow opening a brokerage account outside of my country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2d42137aed0a277db3fba7aab67fa1b", "text": "EFA must be bought and sold in US dollars. XIN allows people to buy and sell EFA in Canadian dollars without exposing their investment to unpredictable swings in the USD/CAD ratio. This is what's known as a currency-hedged instrument. Now, why the chart sums up to over 100% is anyone's guess. Presumably it's the result of a couple hundred rounding errors from all the components. If you view their most recent report, it also sums up to over 100%, but at least the EFA component is (sensibly) under 100%. P.S. I'm not seeing where it says there's only one holding. There's the primary holding, plus over 100 other cash holdings to effect the currency-hedging.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd894d1730795d2534bc64b24977b373", "text": "Sure, but as a retail client you'd be incurring transaction fees on entry and exit. Do you have the necessary tools to manage all the corporate actions, too? And index rebalances? ETF managers add value by taking away the monstrous web of clerical work associated with managing a portfolio of, at times, hundreds of different names. With this comes the value of institutional brokerage commissions, data licenses, etc. I think if you were to work out the actual brokerage cost, as well as the time you'd have to spend doing it yourself, you'd find that just buying the ETF is far cheaper. Also a bit of a rabbit hole, but how would you (with traditional retail client tools) even coordinate the simultaneous purchase of all 500 components of something like SPY? I would guess that, on average, you're going to have significantly worse slippage to the index than a typical ETF provider. Add that into your calculation too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a198d0acdcc2a019260a9d70f0bdcf39", "text": "Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "620dadd69f63a02ed5ff14e985f37356", "text": "There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccaa9f16e3c82ad1edbf15f4e1c42191", "text": "You probably bought the cross listed WestJet stock. If you wanted to buy shares on the TSE, I'd suspect you'd have to find a way to open a brokerage account within Canada and then you'd be able to buy the shares. However, this could get complicated to some extent as there could be requirements of Canadian tax stuff like a Social Insurance Number that may require some paperwork. In addition, you'd have to review tax law of both countries to determine how to appropriately report to each country your income as there are various rules around that. TD Waterhouse would be the Canadian subsidiary of TD Ameritrade though I haven't tried to create a Canadian brokerage account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d7be5ad5ea9d477522e1a2195170154", "text": "See the following information: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Treasury_Inflation_Protected_Security You can buy individual bonds or you can purchase many of them together as a mutual fund or ETF. These bonds are designed to keep pace with inflation. Buying individual inflation-protected US government bonds is about as safe as you can get in the investment world. The mutual fund or ETF approach exposes you to interest rate risk - the fund's value can (and sometimes does) drop. Its value can also increase if interest rates fall.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a404654ead22b2255f0566d521035db", "text": "\"@sdg's answer is spot-on with the advice to avoid repeated conversions, but I'd like to provide some specifics on the fees involved: Each time you round-trip Canadian dollars (CAD) through a U.S.-dollar (USD) priced security at TD Waterhouse and leave your proceeds in CAD, you're paying a total foreign exchange fee – implied in their rate spread – of about 3%, give or take. That's ~3% per buy & sell combination, or ~1.5% on each end. You can imagine if you trade back & forth frequently, you can quickly lose a lot of money. Do it back and forth ten times in a year and you're out ~30% on the fees alone! The TD U.S. Money Market Fund (TDB166) that TD Waterhouse is referring to has no direct commission to buy or sell, but it does have a Management Expense Ratio (MER) of 0.20% per year – basically a fee which is deducted from the fund's returns (which, today, are also close to zero.) Practically speaking, that's a very slim fee to hold some USD in your Canadian dollar TFSA. While 0.20% is cheap, a point to keep in mind is if you maintain a significant USD balance, you are maintaining currency risk: You can lose money in CAD terms if the CAD appreciates vs. USD. Additional references: Canadian Capitalist describes TD Waterhouse and the use of TDB166 and \"\"wash trades\"\" at How to \"\"Wash\"\" Your Trade? He's referring to RRSPs, but the same applies to TFSAs, which came out after the post was written. Canadian Couch Potato has two relevant articles: Are US-listed ETFs Really Cheaper? and Lowering Your Currency Exchange Fees.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b093899a640d476dc32d6a2ae1785f4a", "text": "\"In practice, most (maybe all) stock indices are constructed by taking a weighted average of stock prices denominated in a single currency, and so the index implicitly does have that currency - as you suggest, US dollars for the S&P 500. In principle you can buy one \"\"unit\"\" of the S&P 500 for $2,132.98 or whatever by buying an appropriate quantity of each of its constituent stocks. Also, in a more realistic scenario where you buy an index via a tracker fund, you would typically need to buy using the underlying currency of the index and your returns will be relative to that currency - if the index goes up by 10%, your original investment in dollars is up by 10%.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e4b3cd8d798e8b79a260badce91c6727	Should I pay off my 401k loan or reinvest the funds elsewhere?	[ { "docid": "cd50b4b5fd3b8e0ea118323e7c77f350", "text": "Pay the 401(k) loan back as soon as possible. To be clear, the money from your 401(k) loan is no longer invested and working for you. It doesn't make sense to pull money out of your 401(k) investments and then invest it in something else. If you want to invest for retirement, pay back the loan and invest that money inside your 401(k). If you leave your job, the 401(k) loan needs to be paid back in full, or else taxes and penalties will apply. If you have put the funds in an IRA, they won't be available to you should you need to pay back the loan early. Instead of making a monthly payment to the 401(k) loan, pay off the loan and then make a monthly investment to an IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66002fb9387b1f794929de8adce812a2", "text": "\"This summer I used a loan from my 401(k) to help pay for the down payment of a new house. We planned on selling a Condo a few months later, so we only needed the loan for a short period but wanted to keep monthly payments low since we would be paying two mortgages for a few months. I also felt like the market might take a dip in the future, so I liked the idea of trying to cash out high and buy back low (spoiler alert: this didn't happen). So in July 2017 I withdrew $17,000 from my account (Technically $16,850.00 principal and $150 processing fee) at an effective 4.19% APR (4% rate and then the fee), with 240 scheduled payments of $86.00 (2 per month for 10 years). Over the lifetime of the loan the total finance charge was $3,790, but that money would be paid back into my account. I was happy with the terms, and it helped tide things over until the condo was sold a few months later. But then I decided to change jobs, and ended up having to pay back the loan ~20 weeks after it was issued (using the proceeds from the sale of the condo). During this time the market had done well, so when I paid back the funds the net difference in shares that I now owned (including shares purchased with the interest payments) was $538.25 less than today's value of the original count of shares that were sold to fund the loan. Combined with the $150 fee, the overall \"\"cost\"\" of the 20 week loan was about 4.05%. That isn't the interest rate (interest was paid back to my account balance), but the value lost due to the principal having been withdrawn. On paper, my account would be worth that much more if I hadn't withdrawn the money. Now if you extrapolate the current market return into 52 weeks, you can think of that loan having an APR \"\"cost\"\" of around 10.5% (Probably not valid for a multi year calculation, but seems accurate for a 12 month projection). Again, that is not interest paid back to the account, but instead the value lost due to the money not being in the account. Sure, the market could take a dip and I may be able to buy the shares back at a reduced cost, but that would require keeping sizable liquid assets around and trying to time the market. It also is not something you can really schedule very well, as the loan took 6 days to fund (not including another week of clarifying questions back/forth before that) and 10 day to repay (from the time I initiated the paperwork to when the check was cashed and shares repurchased). So in my experience, the true cost of the loan greatly depends on how the market does, and if you have the ability to pay back the loan it probably is worth doing so. Especially since you may be forced to do so at any time if you change jobs or your employment is terminated.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "309272655ebb54dfe92acc506e16c8ab", "text": "\"Generally if you need to tap into your retirement for the house - you probably shouldn't buy the house. But that's your call. There are several things you could do. Sue your CPA \"\"friend\"\" for malpractice. Especially if there's any actual proof of that stupid suggestion. Check with your 401k administrator about home-purchase loan from the 401k. You'll be borrowing your own money, and repaying yourself back with interest, but it will be tax free and with no penalties. Keep in mind: if you cannot repay the loan, or you leave your employer without repaying it in full - the remaining balance will be considered withdrawal and you'll pay income taxes + 10% penalty on it. If you have an IRA, you can withdraw up to 10K without penalty if this is your first house (i.e.: you didn't own a house in the last 3 years), and is going to be your primary residence. You'll still pay taxes on the 10K. But, this is not available for 401k plans. You can request equal payments distribution calculated based on your life expectancy (This is the infamous 72(t)(2) distribution, even though many of the exceptions are in the IRC 72(t)(2). This in particular is 72(t)(2)(A)(iv)). Here's the full list of exceptions. Note that even if you're willing to pay the 10% penalty, many 401k plans do not allow distributions as long as you're still employed with the sponsoring employer. If you take a hardship distribution from your 401k (if it even allows it), you'll be prohibited from contributing for 6 months, and your employer will be prohibited from contributing on your behalf as well. I.e.: not only you take out your savings, you'll be barred from saving back. Also, in the same FAQ, it tells you that the hardship distribution can only include the amounts up to the original contributions (less whatever distributions already made), and not earnings or match. I.e.: it may actually be much less than the 40K you're counting on.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e87a6b14d365266f66b3168f54b37a7a", "text": "\"As @AlexKuhl says, ever? yes, but generally? no. If your 401k is invested in stocks and bonds, the long term return is very likely higher than the interest on a mortgage. Long term return on the stock market is around 7%. Mortgage rates these days are around 4%. Add the tax penalty on top of that and you're almost surely better to keep your money in the 401k. There's also the psychological/budgeting factor. People very often say, \"\"I'll pull money out of my retirement fund for this important purchase and then put it back later.\"\" And then later comes and there are other expenses and things they want to do and they never put the money back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "967939d545acf068b4f7f063cfff75ee", "text": "It appears from your description that the 401k account has the automatic dividend reinvestment policy, and that the end result is exactly the same as the external account with the same policy. I.e.: no difference, the dividend affected the 401k account in exactly the same way it affected the external account. The only thing is that for external account you can take the dividend distribution, while for 401k you cannot - it is reinvested automatically. Were you expecting something else?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b65b6c72f1a3450256937f7e40ad0e55", "text": "I wouldn't recommend paying off the debts. Both are low-interest tax-deductible loans that you've been handling well enough to have significant savings, and you can likely earn a higher interest rate by investing than you could by paying down the debt. Putting your money into vanguard ETFs or a betterment account will likely be better in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6d82b330e3c098021ee2389f36e1ca7", "text": "Try to avoid actually pulling money out of your retirement savings. Not only are you paying that stiff penalty today, but you're actually stealing form your future. Many 457 plans allow you to borrow against the balance, usually up to 50% of the plan balance. I'd roll the 401k into the 457 and borrow against it if you really need the money. Borrow a little extra to help you make the first few payments if you need to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b119c3a4579b3590ed61ce06ee66a0f4", "text": "\"I have never double-answered till now. This loan can't be taken out of context. By the way, how much is it? What rate? \"\"Debt bad.\"\" Really? Line the debt up. This is the highest debt you have. But, you work for a company that offers a generous match, i.e. the match to your 401(k). Now, it's a choice, pay off 6% debt or deposit that money to get an immediate 100% return. Your question has validity. In the end, we can tell you when to pay off the debt. After - The issue is that you are quoting a third party without having the discussion or ever being privy to it. In court, this is called 'hearsay.' The best we can do is offer both sides of the issue and priority for the payments. Welcome to Money.SE, nice first question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aed27e6d78118ca83d0620210613f13", "text": "If you quit or get fired, you have 60 days to pay back the loan. If you cannot pay back the loan it becomes an early withdrawal subject to taxes and the the 10% penalty. Taking a loan for any significant amount of the down payment is a bad idea for the reasons above. As an alternative, adjust your contributions down to get your maximum match and stash the extra money outside of your 401k in a brokerage account. If you have a Roth IRA already, you can into using up to 10k of it for a first time home purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b348c5aa2e214107ae6320010955db9", "text": "Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29. Sure, retirement savings is important, but if you've already started at age 22 you're probably going to end up way ahead of most either way. When you're 60 you're probably not going to bemoan giving up a few grand of employer match in your 20s. That's what I would do. Edit: I actually like stannius's suggestion in the comments below. IF there's enough vested in your plan that is also available for withdrawal that you could just scoop $6,500 out of your 401(k) net of the 10% penalty and federal and state taxes (which would be on the full amount) to pay the debt, I'd consider that instead of stopping the prospective contributions. That way you could continue your contributions and receive the match contributions on a prospective basis. I doubt this is a legitimate option because it's very common for employers to restrict or forbid withdrawal of employee and/or employer contributions made during your employment, but it would be worth looking in to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e63eabd78c2e65995082762ec7900d", "text": "\"There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt. I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans. I've seen people refer to saving as \"\"paying yourself\"\" if that helps justify it in your mind. My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn. Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off? Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off. There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever. If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement. Don't get suckered into their high-fee \"\"Retirement 20XX\"\" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5835cdf43d3d7b347105985be9325f4e", "text": "I agree with the others that pulling the money out of your 401(k) is not the best idea due to the taxes and penalties. But I also think that a 401(k) loan is not a good option either. Somehow life happens, and the time when you can least afford to repay the loan (just after losing your job) will be the time when you have to repay the loan or pay the taxes and penalties. There's just too much risk there. You also lose the compounding gains you'd get from the investment, and it's likely not worth sacrificing your future retirement for this. It's probably worth finding out how close you are to having your house appraise out for a successful re-fi. Without that information, you're just guessing. Depending on how close you are, you pile up as much cash as you can over the next few months to try to pay down the mortgage enough to qualify for the re-fi. As you're doing this, if home values start coming up in your area, you'll have that going for you as well. It might even be worth suspending your 401(k) contributions for a short while to give you more cash to put towards the re-fi goal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ac77f862da86e38701a192398ab3ea4", "text": "I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b5e3aa7b4c6237e1f34b0c2987072a", "text": "It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2945a37cd3f3dd83183b05ca5f474dcb", "text": "Unless that 401K has very low expense ratios on its funds, you should roll it into an IRA and choose funds with low expense ratios. After rolling it over you should not take the 10% penalty and use it to purchase a home. Unless you use that home as an income property, it is unlikely to provide you more than a 1% inflation-adjusted rate of return given historical data. The S&P 500 is about 4% adjusted for inflation. And that money currently in your 401(k) is for your retirement - your future. Don't borrow against your future. Let compound interest do its work on that money. The value of a house is in the rent you aren't paying to live somewhere and there are a lot of costs to consider. That doesn't mean don't buy. It just means buy wisely. If you are currently maxing out your 401(k), you may consider cutting back to save for your down payment. Other than that I wouldn't touch retirement money unless it was a dire financial emergency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66d1c6d62fb4b1cb88089c3cfedc583b", "text": "You're doing great. I'd suggest trying get putting 5-10% towards your retirement and the balance to the student loans. You are a little weak in retirement savings, but you have $550k house with 20% equity that you bought at the bottom of the market. That's a smart investment IMO, and in my mind compensates somewhat for your low 401k balance. If I were you, I would retire the student loans ASAP to reduce the money that you have to shell out each month. That way, you have the option of scaling back you or your wife's work somewhat to avoid paying thousands for child care. In my mind, less debt == more options, and I like options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7515b32ac0cc666f93929353cfda8291", "text": "\"A) Yes, it does accomplish the goal of adding more money, but the money is in lieu of any return you can earn while the loan is outstanding. If you somehow knew exactly which periods where going to run negative, and you took a 401k loan during that time, you'd be in pretty good shape, but if you had that information you'd probably be ruling the world in short order and wouldn't care much about a measly 401k. B) It's a nice idea, but unfortunately you are not allowed to set your own interest rate. (If you could your idea would work perfectly.) The interest rate is bank specific, and is typically 1-2 points over prime. But if your plan was to leave your money sitting in cash or low interest bearing accounts anyway, the loan does actually achieve the goal of \"\"getting more money in there\"\". Though it's your money; you aren't \"\"earning\"\" it.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5a45811315f5a1cbd1d63f23aeded329	How can home buying be considered a sound investment with all of that interest that needs to be paid?	[ { "docid": "03252d1fca7489fe4a01185bad2050df", "text": "\"I'm going to start with your title question: How can home buying be considered a sound investment with all of that interest that needs to be paid? If taken literally, this is a loaded question because if you pay cash for a home, you don't pay any interest. Furthermore, if your interest rate is 3% for 10 years you won't pay nearly as much interest as you will if your rate is 10% for 30 years, so \"\"all of that interest\"\" is relative to your personal situation. Having said that, of course I understand what you mean. Most people pay interest, and interest is expensive, so how do you calculate if it's worth it? That question has been asked and answered, but for your particular situation, you really have two separate questions: I believe you should answer these questions independently. If you move far away, it's probably the case that you can save a lot of money by either renting or buying in that location. So you should first consider if it's worth it to move, and then if it is, decide if it's worth it to rent or buy. If you decide not to move far away, then decide if maybe you can save money by renting somewhere near your current home. Since it sounds like if you move you may have to become a landlord, living close by to your tenant may also make it easier to deal with problems when they arise.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f4606f0cbe94dc032f33ef20acd4ed1", "text": "Since then I wanted to move out of this house because the property taxes are so high and the mortgage payment is a killer. As I understand this is a property jointly owned by your parents and you. As they are not living staying in the house, you have taken over the mortgage payments for this house along with any other maintenance. If you move out of this house; the rent is expected to cover the cost of maintenance and mortgage payments. Are we better of staying in Jersey where our family and friends are? This is an individual decision. It is not just family and friends, but also schooling of kids, penitentially if you change jobs would it also entail changing residence as the workplace would be more near from current home than the new home. I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. There are quite a few posts on first-time-home-buyer Some question like this one and this one and this one are good reads. There are historically times when the Mortgage EMI becomes equal or less than Rent paid. In such times it is good to buy home, than pay rent. Otherwise quite a few invest advisor's mention that fools buy house and wise live in it. There are advantages to buying as well advantages to renting. There is no simple answer and it depends on multitude of factors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ee701d9d24ae6a665c16012f50a5bce", "text": "\"The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming that renting a house is easy and automatic. Who is going to manage the property? Your parents? What are you going to do if the tenants burn the place down, start having drug parties there, or secretly have 6 cats who piss everywhere so noone will ever want to rent it again? What are you going to do when the house goes unrented for a year and you have to pay a year's worth of mortgage payments with no rental income? What are you going to do when some deadbeat decides to stop paying the rent, but won't move out, and when you try to evict him, he goes to court to stop you? You going to fly to NJ to make the court appearances? Unless you sell your existing house, or your parents buy you out, then you need to stay. You should not attempt to own two houses at once with one of the houses located not where you are at. That will not turn out well. Also, just as an aside, 30-year mortgages are not an \"\"investment\"\"; they are a way to lose money. Usually people get them because they want a big beautiful house that they cannot afford, so they borrow the money. That is not \"\"investing\"\", that is wasting money to live in luxurious circumstances. If you want to become wealthy, buy a property you can afford, not something that you have to string out payments for 30 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcbcbebeb0e6fc63a5f9ab0ae5e4448e", "text": "\"Your question isn't great, but I will attempt to answer this piece as it seems really the root of your personal finance question: I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. And... Her logic is it will take almost 5 years to get back our down payment and we have to pay interest as well. So how can this move help our family financially in the long run? ... Is she right? She is mostly wrong. First, consider that there is no \"\"ROI\"\" really on your down payment. Assuming you are paying what your home would sell for the next day, then your \"\"RIO\"\" is already yours (minus realtor fees). She is talking about cash on hand, not ROI. I will use an example without taking into account risk of home markets going down or other risks to ownership. Example: Let's say you pay $2800 a month in mortgage interest+principle at 5.5% apr and $200 a month in taxes+insurance on a $360k loan ($400k house). In this example let's say the same house if you were to rent it is $3800 a month. Understand the Opportunity Cost of renting (the marginal amount it costs you to NOT buy). So far, your opportunity cost is $800 a month. The principle of your house will be increasing with each payment. In our example, it's about $400 for the first payment, and will increase with each payment made while decreasing the interest payment (Suggest you look at an amortization table for your specific mortgage example). So, you're real number is now $1200 a month opportunity cost. Consider also the fact that the $400 a month is sitting in a savings account of sorts. While most savings accounts give you less than 1% in returns and then charge taxes on that gain, your home may (or may not be) much higher than that and won't charge you taxes on the gains when you sell it (If you live in it for a period of time as defined by the IRS.) Let's assume a conservative long term appreciation rate of 3%. That's $12k a year on a $400k house. So, now you're at $2200 a month opportunity cost. In this example I didn't touch on your tax savings of ownership. I also didn't touch on the maintenance cost of ownership or the maintenance cost of renting (your deposit + other fees) which all should be considered. You may have other costs involved in renting. For instance: The cost of not being able to fully utilize your rental as your own house. This may be an even simpler and more convincing way to explain it: On the $2800 mortgage example, you will be paying around $19k in interest and $2400 on taxes, insurance = $23k per year (number could be way different in your example). That is basically throw away money you're never getting back. On the rental, 100% of your rent at $3800 a month is throw away money you're never getting back. That's $45,600 a year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0f4e71ca3e4d125fc94a8d1dbfdc9e8", "text": "Housing prices are inseparable from the job market of an area. The 40k you want to use as a down payment will buy an entire house outright in many places of the country that have no jobs. If your job is mobile why not follow cheap housing, even if it is just to rent?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b509ef7590b593609fa926e7c92f2d42", "text": "This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e2ae1307e47b1d6f0b007f2af9a1eef", "text": "\"Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the \"\"priorities\"\" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a0af25e03040e9e403abe4284ce6bb4", "text": "\"To expand on what @fishinear and some others are saying: The only way to look at it is that the parents have invested, because the parents get a % of the property in the end, rather than the original loan amount plus interest. It is investment; it is not a loan of any kind. One way to understand this is to imagine that after 20 years, the property triples in value (or halves in value). The parents participate as if they had invested in 75% ownership of the property and the OP as if 25% ownership of the property. Note that with a loan, there is a (potentially changing) outstanding loan balance, that could be paid to end the loan (to pay off the loan), and there is an agreed upon an interest rate that is computed on the outstanding balance — none of those apply to this situation; further with a loan there is no % of the property: though the property may be used to secure the loan, that isn't ownership. Basically, since the situation bears none of the qualities of a loan, and yet does bear the qualities of investment, the parents have bought a % ownership of the property. The parents have invested in 75% of the real estate, and the OP is renting that 75% from them for: The total rent the OP is paying the parents for their 75% of the property is then (at least) $1012.50/mo, A rental rate of $1012.50/mo for 75% of the property equates to a rental price of $1350/mo for the whole property. This arrangement is only fair to both parties when the fair-market rental value of the whole property is $1350/mo; it is unfair to the OP when the fair-market rental value of property is less, and unfair to the parents when the fair-market rental value of property is more. Of course, the fair-market rental value of the property is variable over time, so the overall fairness would need to understand rental values over time. I feel like this isn't actually a loan if I can never build more equity in the condo. Am I missing something? No, it isn't a loan. You and your parents are co-investing in real estate. Further, you are renting their portion of the investment from them. For comparison, with a loan you have 100% ownership in the property from the start, so you, the owner, would see all the upside/downside as the property valuation changes over time whether the loan is paid off or not. The borrower owes the loan balance (and interest) not some % of the property. A loan may be secured by the property (using a lien) but that is quite different from ownership. Typically, a loan has a payment schedule setup to reduce the loan balance (steadily) over time so that you eventually pay it off. With a loan you gain equity % — the amount you own outright, free & clear — in two ways, (1) by gradually paying off the loan over time so the unencumbered portion of the property grows, and (2) if the valuation of the property increases over time that gain in equity % is yours (not the lenders). However note that the legal ownership is all 100% yours from the start. Are my parents ripping me off with this deal that doesn't allow me to build my equity in my home? You can evaluate whether you are being ripped off by comparing the $1350/mo rate to the potential rental rate for the property over time (which will be a range or curve, and there are real estate websites (like zillow.com or redfin.com, others) to help estimate what fair-market rent might be). Are there similar deals like this...? A straight-forward loan would have the borrower with 100% legal ownership from the start, just that the property secures the loan. Whereas with co-investment there is a division of ownership % that is fixed from the start. It is unusual to have both investment and loan at the same time where they are setup for gradual change between them. (Investment and loan can certainly be done together but would usually be done as completely separate contracts, one loan, one investment with no adjustment between the two over time.) To do both investment and loan would be unusual but certainly be possible, I would imagine; however that is not the case here as being described. I am not familiar with contracts that do both so as to take over the equity/ownership/investment over time while also reducing loan balance. Perhaps some forms of rent-to-own work that way, something to look into — still, usually rent-to-own means that until the renter owns it 100%, the landlord owns 100%, rather than a gradual % transfer over time (gradual transfer would imply co-ownership for a long time, something that most landlords would be reluctant to do). Transfer of any particular % of real estate ownership typically requires filing documents with the county and may incur fees. I am not aware of counties that allow gradual % transfer with one single filing. Still, the courts may honor a contract that does such gradual transfer outside of county filings. If so, what should I do? Explain the situation to your parents, and, in particular, however far out of balance the rental rate may be. Decide for yourself if you want to rent vs. buy, and where (that property or some other). If your parents are fair people, they should be open to negotiation. If not, you might need a lawyer. I suspect that a lawyer would be able to find several issues with which to challenge the contract. The other terms are important as well, namely gross vs. net proceeds (as others point out) because selling a property costs a % to real estate agents and possibly some taxes as well. And as the others have pointed out, if the property ultimately looses value, that could be factored in as well. It is immaterial to judging the fairness of this particular situation whether getting a bank loan would be preferable to renting 75% from the parents. Further, loan interest rates don't factor into the fairness of this rental situation (but of course interest rates do factor into identifying the better of various methods of investment and methods of securing a place to live, e.g. rent vs. buy). Contributed by @Scott: If your parents view this as an investment arrangement as described, then you need to clarify with them if the payments being made to them are considered a \"\"buy out\"\" of their share. This would allow you to gain the equity you seek from the arrangement. @Scott: Terms would have to be (or have been) declared to that effect; this would involve specifying some schedule and/or rates. It would have to be negotiated; this it is not something that could go assumed or unstated. -- Erik\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a59570049a42e56497a59511e25abb8e", "text": "I think part of why it is perceived is so bad is because the fluctuations in housing prices are relatively large, especially compared to the amount needed to put a down payment. This is not an uncommon scenario: And this is not even being underwater, just being even. Imagine how much worse it feels if your dream of home ownership has turned into just a pile of debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e27c3075ff6dfca14cd724c6454f2ab", "text": "First of all, realize that buying a home isn't really an investment. It is cheaper to rent. In recent years, people were able to sell their houses for astronomical profits, but that won't be happening much in the future. Additionally, there are many hidden costs of owning a home. Regarding the mortgage interest tax deduction, don't buy a house just to get this. It is like spending $1 to get back some amount of money less than $1. So just keep that in mind. Are you debt free? If not, pay off your other debts before buying a home. I follow the advice of Dave Ramsey, so I'll echo it here. Make sure you have an emergency fund and no debt. At this point I think you are ready to buy a house. When you do, put down as much as you can; above 20% if possible. Then get a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. At this point, start saving for your kid's college (if you believe in that) and paying down your home. Having no mortgage is a dream many people never have. I cannot wait until I have no mortgage. Don't get suckered into getting a high priced loan. Pay down as much of the price of the house as possible up front. This gives you flexibility too. What if you need to sell quickly? Well, you will have equity from the get-go, so this will be much easier. Good luck with your purchase!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7360b35a07963916bbe09aa2a6d83bae", "text": "Buying a starter home is not a bad idea if you have a stable job and plan to stay in the area for a long time. Owning a house that you can afford is a very good idea. Purchasing a home that you do not want to live in long term is not a good idea. People who move frequently pay a lot in real estate commissions, as you've mentioned, but they also pay loan origination and title fees. Mortgage interest is tax-deductible, and many people consider home ownership to better than renting because of that fact alone. What they do not consider are costs of property taxes, HOA fees (common in condos and townhouses, but also possible in single family homes), and being tied to piece of real estate if the job market changes and they need to move. The easy rule of thumb is to consider the ratio of total price to one year of rent. If you could purchase for $200k, but you would rent for $800 per month then the price to rent ratio is 20.83. Depending on the market most homes fall between 10 and 20. When the ratio is less than 10, then you would be at a great disadvantage renting instead of purchasing, when the ratio is greater than 20, you would be foolish to buy instead of rent unless there was some other compelling factor motivating the purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d", "text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "441cb33517b78809ab0bb9a2dcf44c46", "text": "So let's assume some values to better explain this. For simplicity, all of these are in thousands: So in this example, you're going to destroy $250 in value, pay off the existing $150 loan and have to invest $300 in to build the new house and this example doesn't have enough equity to cover it. You typically can't get a loan for much more than the (anticipated) property value. Basically, you need to get a construction loan to cover paying off the existing loan plus whatever you want to spend to pay for the new house minus whatever you're planning to contribute from savings. This new loan will need to be for less than the new total market value. The only way this will work out this way is if you bring significant cash to closing, or you owe less than the lot value on the current property. Note, that this is in effect a simplification. You can spend less building a house than it's worth when you're done with it, etc., but this is the basic way it would work - or NOT work in most cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fe8deec27a0ed2312c70246cbca7f76", "text": "\"There's an old saying: \"\"Never invest in anything that eats or needs maintenance.\"\" This doesn't mean that a house or a racehorse or private ownership of your own company is not an investment. It just points out that constant effort is needed on your part, or on the part of somebody you pay, just to keep it from losing value. Common stock, gold, and money in the bank are three things you can buy and leave alone. They may gain or lose market value, but not because of neglect on your part. Buying a house is a complex decision. There are many benefits and many risks. Other investments have benefits and risks too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d1b257f29aaef270074323d88d51d45", "text": "The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you. Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0cd7730d095a4ebac6e95aabb354f31", "text": "Buying a property and renting it out can be a good investment if it matches your long term goals. Buying an investment property is a long term investment. A large chunk of your money will be tied up with the property and difficult to access. If you put your money into dividend producing stocks you can always sell the stock and have your money back in a matter of days this is not so with a property. (But you can always do a Home equity line of credit (HELOC)) I would also like to point out landlording is not a passive endeavor as JohnFx stated dealing with a tenant can be a lot of work. This is not work you necessarily have to deal with, it is possible to contract with a property management company that would place tenants and take care of those late night calls. Property management companies often charge 10% of your monthly rent and will eat a large portion of your profits. It could be worth the time and headache of tenant relations. You should build property management into you expenses anyway in case you decide to go that route in the future. There are good things about owning an investment property. It can produce returns in a couple of ways. If you choose this route it can be lucrative but be sure to do your homework. You must know the area you are investing very well. Know the rent, and vacancy rates for Single family homes, look at multifamily homes as a way of mitigating risk(if one unit is vacant the others are still paying).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0f3195d0e9409f2aa92e1fb02bc0eef", "text": "\"There are actually a few questions you are asking here. I will try and address each individually. Down Payment What you put down can't really be quantified in a dollar amount here. $5k-$10k means nothing. If the house costs $20k then you're putting 50% down. What is relevant is the percent of the purchase price you're putting down. That being said, if you go to purchase a property as an investment property (something you wont be moving into) then you are much more likely to be putting a down payment much closer to 20-25% of the purchase price. However, if you are capable of living in the property for a year (usually the limitation on federal loans) then you can pay much less. Around 3.5% has been my experience. The Process Your plan is sound but I would HIGHLY suggest looking into what it means to be a landlord. This is not a decision to be taken lightly. You need to know the tenant landlord laws in your city AND state. You need to call a tax consultant and speak to them about what you will be charging for rent, and how much you should withhold for taxes. You also should talk to them about what write offs are available for rental properties. \"\"Breaking Even\"\" with rent and a mortgage can also mean loss when tax time comes if you don't account for repairs made. Financing Your first rental property is the hardest to get going (if you don't have experience as a landlord). Most lenders will allow you to use the potential income of a property to qualify for a loan once you have established yourself as a landlord. Prior to that though you need to have enough income to afford the mortgage on your own. So, what that means is that qualifying for a loan is highly related to your debt to income ratio. If your properties are self sustaining and you still work 40 hours a week then your ability to qualify in the future shouldn't be all that impacted. If anything it shows that you are a responsible credit manager. Conclusion I can't stress enough to do YOUR OWN research. Don't go off of what your friends are telling you. People exaggerate to make them seem like they are higher on the socioeconomic ladder then they really are. They also might have chicken little syndrome and try to discourage you from making a really great choice. I run into this all the time. People feel like they can't do something or they're to afraid so you shouldn't be able to either. If you need advice go to a professional or read a book. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b9b6bd0da39b12ed4ac17e04daefd67", "text": "\"Here are the issues, as I see them - It's not that I don't trust banks, but I just feel like throwing all of our money into intangible investments is unwise. Banks have virtually nothing to do with this. And intangible assets has a different meaning than you assume. You don't have to like the market, but try to understand it, and dislike it for a good reason. (Which I won't offer here). Do your 401(k) accounts offer company match? When people start with \"\"we'd like to reduce our deposits\"\" that's the first thing we need to know. Last - you plan to gain \"\"a few hundred dollars a month.\"\" I bet it's closer to zero or a loss. I'll return to edit, we have recent posts here that reviewed the expenses to consider, and I'd bet that if you review the numbers, you've ignored some of them. \"\"A few hundred\"\" - say it's $300. Or $4000/yr. It would take far less work and risk to simply save $100K in your retirement accounts to produce this sum each year. The investment may very well be excellent. I'm just offering the flip side, things you might have missed. Edit - please read the discussion at How much more than my mortgage should I charge for rent? The answers offer a good look at the list of expenses you need to consider. In my opinion, this is one of the most important things. I've seen too many new RE investors \"\"forget\"\" about so many expenses, a projected monthly income reverts to annual losses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695f94cc21f419f9a5544abe9806fc08", "text": "\"So you work, and give a small irregular amount to you parents. You live with very low expenses. Assuming you make a bit below the average salary in the UK, you should be able to save around £1000. If you found a part time job could you save double? I bet you could. So why do you need credit? Why do you need a credit score? Having poor or no credit can be remedied by having a large down payment. Essentially the bank asks, if this person could afford the payment of this loan why have they not been saving the money? You could save the money and either buy the thing(s) you desire with cash (the smartest), or put 50% down. Putting 50% or more down turns you into a good credit risk despite having no credit history. In case you missed it: why not just save the money and buy it for cash? Why have compounding interest working against you? Why do you want to work for the bank? Making the interest payments on loans in order to build a credit score is just silly. It is an instance of a \"\"tail wagging the dog\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9994e2dfd9591eb155d1807eb02cb4d1", "text": "If there was no question of improvements to the property, the problem would be simple. Each person invests whatever amount. Calculate the percentage of each person's investment out of the entire investment, and that's what share each one owns. Like: A puts in $10,000 for the deposit and pays $5,000 toward the mortgage over the next however many years. B puts in $5,000 toward the deposit but pays $7,000 of the mortgage. C puts in $15,000 but pays only $1,000 of the mortgage payments. So total investments: A - $15,000, B - $12,000, C - $16,000. Total - $43,000. So A's share of the house is 15,000/43,000 = 34.9%. Etc. If you then sell it you pay off any outstanding debt, and then everybody gets their share of what's left. But once you start making improvements, there is no simple formula. Suppose you put down new flooring in the dining room. You pay $500 for materials and put in 20 hours of labor. Presumably you have now added something more than $500 to your share, but how much more? How much are the hours worth? What if someone damages the house -- puts a hole in the all or something -- and then fixes it. Does the time and effort they put into fixing it add to their investment, or did that just cancel out the damage they did? What if one person does a lot to keep the house in generally good condition in small snippets of time, like cleaning furnace filters and polishing the floors, while another does nothing and lets their share get run down and dirty? It gets very complicated. Theoretically you could come up with a rate at which you value your work -- like say every hour spent maintaining the house is worth $10 or $20 or whatever. But who's going to keep track of it over the course of potentially many years? And what if one person does a small number of big, easily quantifiable jobs, while another does many small, hard-to-count jobs? Like if A mops the floor every week for 2 years, is that worth more or less than B installing 3 ceiling fans, a door, and 2 windows? You could go around and around on this sort of thing.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3362d42c146aee935ec6f9e08dc8ab54	Didn't apply for credit card but got an application denied letter?	[ { "docid": "5651ed4550edbbf5adea6fbdbc7b9bdd", "text": "fine because the application was declined anyway. No it isn't fine. Credit card applications generally need a hard pull, so get it rectified. Firstly check if an application was really made on your behalf. Some companies use this ploy to pull you into a scheme of making you apply for a credit card. Secondly call up the credit card company and ask them about the details of who had made the application as you haven't done so and inform them that it was a fraudulent application. It might be somebody is using your personal details to do a identity theft in your name. Thirdly get in touch with the credit rating firms and see if a check has been made on your credit report. Dispute it if you see a check in your record and have it removed from your report. If you subscribe to credit agency, get the identity theft protection, helps you in such cases. And finally keep a diligent eye on your credit records from now on. Once bitten, twice shy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "547b35de15d840aa2245a1a2679afcbe", "text": "This can be a case of someone trying to use your identity to obtain credit. I would put a fraud alert on my credit immediately. I went through something similar... got denial letters for credit I didn't apply to. A few months later I get hit with a credit ding from a pay day loan company that apparently allowed the thief to get a loan who obviously didn't pay it back. I had no contact with this company before they put the lates on my credit and it took over a year to get this cleaned up. Apparently this loan was obtained about a week after I got the first denial letter so if I put a fraud alert on immediately it would have most likely stopped this fraudulent pay day loan before it happened.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11b39e366f3d2845e53b28c60886fc9e", "text": "\"This question has the [united kingdom] tag, so the information about USA or other law and procedures is probably only of tangential use. Except for understanding that no, this is not something to ignore. It may well indicate someone trying to use your id fraudulently, or some other sort of data-processing foul-up that may adversely impact your credit rating. The first thing I would do is phone the credit card company that sent the letter to inform them that I did not make his application, and ask firmly but politely to speak to their fraud team. I would hope that they would be helpful. It's in their interests as well as yours. (Added later) By the way, do not trust anything written on the letter. It may be a fake letter trying to lure or panic you into some other sort of scam, such as closing your \"\"compromised\"\" bank account and transferring the money in it to the \"\"fraud team\"\" for \"\"safety\"\". (Yes, it sounds stupid, but con-men are experts at what they do, and even finance industry professionals have fallen victim to such scams) So find a telephone number for that credit card company independently, for example Google, and then call that number. If it's the wrong department they'll be able to transfer you internally. If the card company is unhelpful, you have certain legal rights that do not cost much if anything. This credit company is obliged to tell you as an absolute minimum, which credit reference agencies they used when deciding to decline \"\"your\"\" application. Yes, you did not make it, but it was in your name and affected your credit rating. There are three main credit rating agencies, and whether or not the bank used them, I would spend the statutory £2 fee (if necessary) with each of them to obtain your statutory credit report, which basically is all data that they hold about you. They are obliged to correct anything which is inaccurate, and you have an absolute right to attach a note to your file explaining, for example, that you allege entries x,y, and z were fraudulently caused by an unknown third party trying to steal your ID. (They may be factually correct, e.g. \"\"Credit search on \"\", so it's possible that you cannot have them removed, and it may not be in your interests to have them removed, but you certainly want them flagged as unauthorized). If you think the fraudster may be known to you, you can also use the Data Protection Act on the company which write to you, requiring them to send you a copy of all data allegedly concerning yourself which it holds. AFAIR this costs £10. In particular you will require sight of the application and signature, if it was made on paper, and the IP address details, if it was made electronically, as well as all the data content and subsequent communications. You may recognise the handwriting, but even if not, you then have documentary evidence that it is not yours. As for the IP address, you can deduce the internet service provider and then use the Data Protection act on them. They may decline to give any details if the fraudster used his own credentials, in which case again you have documentary evidence that it was not you ... and something to give the police and bank fraud investigators if they get interested. I suspect they won't be very interested, if all you uncover is fraudulent applications that were declined. However, you may uncover a successful fraud, i.e. a live card in your name being used by a criminal, or a store or phone credit agreement. In which case obviously get in touch with that company a.s.a.p. to get it shut down and to get the authorities involved in dealing with the crime. In general, write down everything you are told, including phone contact names, and keep it. Confirm anything that you have agreed in writing, and keep copies of the letters you write and of course, the replies you receive. You shouldn't need any lawyer. The UK credit law puts the onus very much on the credit card company to prove that you owe it money, and if a random stranger has stolen your id, it won't be able to do that. In fact, it's most unlikely that it will even try, unless you have a criminal record or a record of financial delinquency. But it may be an awful lot of aggravation for years to come, if somebody has successfully stolen your ID. So even if the first lot of credit reference agency print-outs look \"\"clean\"\", check again in about six weeks time and yet again in maybe 3 months. Finally there is a scheme that you can join if you have been a victim of ID theft. I've forgotten its name but you will probably be told about it. Baically, your credit reference files will be tagged at your request with a requirement for extra precautions to be taken. This should not affect your credit rating but might make obtaining credit more hassle (for example, requests for additional ID before your account is opened after the approval process). Oh, and post a letter to yourself pdq. It's not unknown for fraudsters to persuade the Post Office to redirect all your mail to their address!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "179865a30346970704317a51f27e3820", "text": "Do you have any ties to your old address? In particular are you the LANDLORD? This could have been a precursor application to test identity evidence and setup a mortgage. The perps may even have legally changed their name to yours and even be living in, or close to the house if it is a share house to intercept this kind of mail. Otherwise someone's database may have been breached, so it is important you try to work out where this information used in the application came from. If they are an illegal you may be racking up Council Tax somewhere or end up paying income tax on their earnings. In any case your character has probably now been damaged. So do follow it up right smartly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "133383e907a8124467af4d047c235890", "text": "I would keep the letter in a file for follow-up, and I would do what you are already planning to do and wait to see what shows up on the credit report. If this does reflect an identity theft attempt, chances are that others will follow, so vigilance is key here. If there is a hard credit check, then you can dispute that on your credit report. If there is not a hard credit check, there is nothing further this credit card company can do to help you anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b7e8ecc80023da253d521cf2d0df719", "text": "The use of an old address would make me suspect that your data was stolen from some database you had registered to long ago with the old address. I would think that contacting your credit rating firm and the credit card company is urgent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4931ca9196a891ddf7af02f5cbbd2266", "text": "It's marketing or SCAM tentative. Please check with extreme attention before clicking any link present in the communication.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "daa5dd379131b614b18d527b58726143", "text": "\"You can't get your credit score for free, just the report with the information the score is based on. If you got credit reports through annualcreditreport.com, the Score tab would typically contain an advertisement for purchasing your score. If you have an ad-blocker enabled, that might be blocked, explaining the blank page. Try turning off any browser extensions that alter how pages are shown. The accounts page/tab/section should show something like \"\"0 open accounts\"\" or similar, to indicate that it is loading data. Your lack of credit history probably does mean you don't have a credit score, so it's probably not worth paying anything to find that out. The focus should be on the accuracy of the underlying report, since you can do something about that. Should I be worried? I'd say no on that. You'll have an easier time getting credit (and better terms) in the future if you start now with some account, even if it's a secured credit card you don't use much, because the age of the oldest and average accounts are factors in credit scoring models.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba5e72b09d215ff8acab3310262b3c2c", "text": "I just want to stress one point, which has been mentioned, but only in passing. The disadvantage of a credit card is that it makes it very easy to take on a credit. paying it off over time, which I know is the point of the card. Then you fell into the trap of the issuer of the card. They benefit if you pay off stuff over time; that's why taking up a credit seems to be so easy with a credit (sic) card. All the technical aspects aside, you are still in debt, and you never ever want to be so if you can avoid it. And, for any voluntary, non-essential, payment, you can avoid it. Buy furniture that you can pay off in full right now. If that means only buying a few pieces or used/junk stuff, then so be it. Save up money until you can buy more/better pieces.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aab0b87f4fa590447550562b5784461f", "text": "I was actually planning for the CFA. But with not being sure about doing a job anytime soon, and needing four years after the CFA for the charter, I decided against it. Also, I live in a foreign country so getting a job isn't easy for me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54a3e172d8094f26bd7c5bf0f788a1de", "text": "Some credit checks are ignored as part of the scoring process. Some companies will pull your info, to make sure you haven't become a risk. Others will inquire before they send you an offer. Since you didn't initiate the inquiry it can't impact your score.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953b47450cda011d6803d18a238445f0", "text": "When you start living in US, it doesn't actually matter what was your Credit history in another country. Your Credit History in US is tied to your SSN (Social Security Number), which will be awarded once you are in the country legally and apply for it. Getting an SSN also doesn't guarantee you nothing and you have to build your credit history slowly. Opening a Checking or Savings account will not help you in building a credit history. You need to have some type of Credit Account (credit card, car loan, mortgage etc.) linked to your SSN to start building your credit history. When you are new to US, you probably won't find any bank that will give you a Credit Card as you have no Credit history. One alternative is to apply for a secured credit card. A secured credit card is one you get by putting money or paying money to a bank and open a Credit Card against that money, thereby the bank can be secure that they won't lose any money. Once you have that, you can use that to build up your credit history slowly and once you have a good credit history and score, apply for regular Credit Card or apply for a car loan, mortgage etc. When I came to US 8 years ago, my Credit History was nothing, even though I had pretty good balance and credit history back in my country. I applied for secured credit card by paying $500 to a bank ( which got acquired by CapitalOne ), got it approved and used it for everything, for three years. I applied for other cards in the mean time but got rejected every time. Finally got approved for a regular credit card after three years and in one year added a mortgage and car loan, which helped me to get a decent score now. And Yes, a good Credit Score is important and essential for renting an apartment, leasing a car, getting a Credit Card etc. but normally your employer can always arrange for an apartment given your situation or you need to share apartment with someone else. You can rent a car without and credit score, but need a valid US / International Drivers license and a Credit Card :-) Best option will be to open a secured credit card and start building your credit. When your wife and family arrives, they also will be assigned individual SSN and can start building their credit history themselves. Please keep in mind that Credit Score and Credit History is always individual here...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5aaec0e08ae6e11cf53611b8828df2d5", "text": "No credit card company would ever give a card with either no credit limit or that was not in credit (for prepaid cards) because they would earn no money from it. The company's income is entirely derived from fees that they charge you for balances and interest on those balances so a 0 limit card would be worthless to them. Getting a prepaid card and letting the balance hit 0 might be a way around this but the fees that you will be charged , and will become a debt in your name, when the billing system tries to take the first paid month's cost from the card and fails will be exorbitant. They may go so far as dwarfing the actual cost but the one thing that they will certainly do is lower your credit rating so this is not a good idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87d965cd8c97f1faa8784ca29206e209", "text": "Because even if you won the lottery, without at least some credit history you will have trouble renting cars and hotel rooms. I learned about the importance, and limitations of credit history when, in the 90's, I switched from using credit cards to doing everything with a debit card and checks purely for convenience. Eventually, my unused credit cards were not renewed. At that point in my life I had saved a lot and had high liquidity. I even bought new autos every 5 years with cash. Then, last decade, I found it increasingly hard to rent cars and sometimes even a hotel rooms with a debit card even though I would say they could precharge whatever they thought necessary to cover any expenses I might run. I started investigating why and found out that hotels and car rentals saw having a credit card as a proxy for low risk that you would damage the car or hotel room and not pay. So then I researched credit cards, credit reports, and how they worked. They have nothing about any savings, investments, or bank accounts you have. I had no idea this was the case. And, since I hadn't had cards or bought anything on credit in over 10 years there were no records in my credit files. Old, closed accounts had fallen off after 10 years. So, I opened a couple of secured credit cards with the highest security deposit allowed. They unsecured after a year or so. Then, I added several rewards cards. I use them instead of a debit card and always pay in full and they provide some cash back so I save money compared to just using a debit card. After 4 years my credit score has gone to 800+ even though I have never carried any debt and use the cards as if they were debit cards. I was very foolish to have stopped using credit cards 20 years ago but just had no idea of the importance of an established credit history. And note that establishing a great credit history does not require that you borrow money or take out loans for anything. just get credit cards and pay them in full each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdc24972dcbbbbc3df98bb5c768092f2", "text": "Top 10 Reasons for getting rejected for Credit ~ with some recommendations to fix it. If you have questions about credit, loans or financial planning in general ~ I'm always available ~ If I don't know I will find out for you!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04766bd3dd7726caf75ff1eeab53a63", "text": "\"Your use of the term \"\"loan\"\" is confusing, what you're proposing is to open a new card and take advantage of the 0% APR by carrying a balance. The effects to your credit history / score will be the following:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "707710b1f52ebd3e174ecd48ca16ad0c", "text": "\"I have never had a credit card and have been able to function perfectly well without one for 30 years. I borrowed money twice, once for a school loan that was countersigned, and once for my mortgage. In both cases my application was accepted. You only need to have \"\"good credit\"\" if you want to borrow money. Credit scores are usually only relevant for people with irregular income or a past history of delinquency. Assuming the debtor has no history of delinquency, the only thing the bank really cares about is the income level of the applicant. In the old days it could be difficult to rent a car without a credit car and this was the only major problem for me before about 2010. Usually I would have to make a cash deposit of $400 or something like that before a rental agency would rent me a car. This is no longer a problem and I never get asked for a deposit anymore to rent cars. Other than car rentals, I never had a problem not having a credit card.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2806f52999b4b105d7c10eb3835b65e", "text": "The original poster indicates that he lives in the UK, but there are likely strong similarities with the US banking system that I am more familiar with: The result is that you are likely going to be unable to be approved for 10 checking accounts opened in rapid succession, at least in the US. Finally, in the US, there is no need to have checking accounts with a bank in order to open a credit card with them (although sometimes it can help if you have a low credit score).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e0b9a2e9015aeb08e040b219618558b", "text": "In the US, money talks and bullshit walks. You can skip any credit history requirement if you demonstrate your ability to pay in a very obvious way. Credit history is just a standardized way of weeding out people that cannot reliably pay, instead of having to listen to an individual's excuses about how the bank overdrafted their account five times while they were waiting for their friend to pay them back for bubble gum. If you can show up with a wad of cash, you can get the car, or the apartment, or the bank account without the troubles of everyone else. But you can begin building credit with a secured credit card pretty easily. This will be useful for things like utilities and sometimes jobs. Also, banks won't be opposed to giving you credit if you have a lot of money in an account with them. You should be able to maintain an exemption from all socioeconomic problems in the United States, solely due to your experience with money and assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3e86d6a25a06bf114fedd27ca20791d", "text": "Collection agencies will eventually find you if you work for an employer that uses the credit bureaus for pre-employment screening, or you sign up for utilities or services that check your credit, or you enter into public record any other way (getting arrested, buying land, etc.). Such inquiries will put you on the grid where the collection agencies can find you and/or sue you. Two years out is about the point where they're looking for blood. The next time your friend applies for an apartment, utilities or cell phone service, she's going to get some calls.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4643985f87ceba69f225ba73d64fec9", "text": "\"I took @littleadv 's recommendation that online apps only ask for citizenship due to post-9/11 legislation. I applied to 2 banks in person (one big, one small), and at the dealership. None of my in-person applications ever touched on the issue of citizenship. I even applied in person at the same bank that insta-rejected me online, and told them up front, \"\"I applied online but you rejected me because I'm not a permanent resident.\"\" The banker nodded, said \"\"that shouldn't matter here\"\", and continued processing my application. I did find it very hard to get a loan. I have a credit score in the \"\"excellent\"\" range, but have only 1 open credit card (for 5 years). Apparently, most lenders want to see more open credit before writing an auto loan. The big bank said outright \"\"We want to see 3-5 credit cards open\"\". However, the dealership did find a bank willing to extend me a loan. So: The most reliable way for a non-permanent resident alien to get an auto loan in the US is to avoid online applications. Also, if possible, establish a wide credit history before you try.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db39d960adc97bf1d05e0c089f4b5395", "text": "If you've never had a credit card before a likely reason can be due to lack of credit history. You can apply for a department store card. Nordstroms, Macy's, Target will often grant a small line of credit even with no history. Target would be my first attempt as they have a wide selection of every day items, improving your usage on the card. If you've been denied due to too many applications, then you need to wait 18-24 months for the hard pulls to drop off your credit report before you apply again.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
318a6c92aa1feb286593560a94b2017d	Best way to invest money as a 22 year old?	[ { "docid": "aa2e095caac3e8601d766e12fde31a6d", "text": "What is the goal of the money? If it is to use in the short term, like savings for a car or college, then stick it in the bank and use it for that purpose. If you really want this money to mean something, then in my opinion you have only one choice: Open a ROTH IRA with something like Vanguard or Fidelity and invest in an index fund. Then do something that will be very difficult: Don't touch it. By the time you are 65, it will grow to about 60,000. However, assuming a 20% tax bracket, the value of that money is really more like 75,000. Clearly this will not make or break you either way. The way you live the rest of your life will have far more of an impact. It will get you started on the right path. BTW this is advice I gave my son who is about your age, and does not earn a ton of money as a state trooper. Half of his overtime pay goes into a ROTH. If he lives the rest of his life like he does now, he will be a wealthy man despite making an average income. No debt, and investing a decent portion of his pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16d806ad1069a3d64d5c7303dd0cba85", "text": "Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning. And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning. You may decide to pay down debt first. You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c28e0003579b1499dcead4559fd5f328", "text": "Hopefully this $1000 is just a start, and not the last investment you will ever make. Assuming that, there are a couple of big questions to consider: One: What are you saving for? Are you thinking that this is for retirement 40 or 50 years from now, or something much sooner, like buying a car or a house? You didn't say where you live. In the U.S., if you put money into an IRA or a 401k or some other account that the government classes as a retirement account, you don't pay taxes on the profits from the investment, only on the original principal. If you leave the money invested for a long period of time, the profits can be many times the original investment, so this makes a huge difference. Like suppose that you pay 15% of your income in state and local taxes. And suppose you invest your $1000 in something that gives a 7% annual return and leave it there for 40 years. (Of course I'm just making up numbers for an example, but I think these are in a plausible range. And I'm ignoring the difference between regular income tax and capital gains tax, etc etc. It doesn't change the point.) If you put the money in a classic IRA, you pay 0% taxes the year you open the account, so you have your full $1000, figure that compound interest for 40 years, you'll end up with -- crunch crunch crunch the numbers -- $14,974. Then you pay 15% when you take it leaving you with $12,728. (The end result with a Roth IRA is exactly the same. Feel free to crunch those numbers.) But now suppose you invest in a no-retirement account so you have to pay taxes every year. Your original investment is only $850 because you have to pay tax on that, and your effective return is only 5.95% because you have to pay 15% of the 7%. So after 40 years you have -- crunch crunch -- $10,093. Quite a difference. But if you put money in a retirement account and then take it out before you retire, you pay substantial penalties. I think it's 20%. If you plan to take the money out after a year or two, that would really hurt. Two: How much risk are you willing to take? The reality of investment is that, almost always, the more risk you take, the bigger the potential returns, and vice versa. Investments that are very safe tend to have very low returns. As you're young, if you're saving for retirement, you can probably afford a fairly high amount of risk. If you lose a lot of money this year, odds are you'll get it back over the next few years, or at least be able to put more money into investments to make up for it. If you're 64 and planning to retire next year, you want to take very low-risk investments. In general, investing in government bonds is very safe but has very low returns. Corporate bonds are less safe but offer higher returns. Stocks are a little more. Of course different companies have different levels of risk: new start-ups tend to be very risky, but can give huge returns. Commodities are much higher risk. Buying on margin or selling short are ways to really leverage your money, but you could end up losing more than you invested. Mutual funds are a relatively safe way to invest in stocks and bonds because they spread your risk over many companies. Three: How much effort are you willing to put into managing your investments? How much do you know about the stock market and the commodities market and international finance and so on, and how much are you willing to learn? If your answer is that you know a lot about these things or are willing to dive in and learn a lot, that you can invest in individual stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. If your answer is that you really don't know much about all this, then it makes a lot of sense to just put your money into a mutual fund and let the people who manage the fund do all the work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "830e7d4656847c4e1156d0bded526e60", "text": "The classic answer is simple. Aim to build up a a financial cushion that is the equivalent of 3 times your monthly salary. This should be readily accessible and in cash, to cover any unforeseen expenses that you may incur (car needs repairing, washing machine breaks down etc). Once you have this in place its then time to think about longer term investments. Monthly 'drip feeding' into a mutual stock based investment fund is a good place to start. Pick a simple Index based or fund with a global investment bias and put in a set amount that you can regularly commit to each month. You can get way more complicated but for sheer simplicity and longer term returns, this is a simple way to build up some financial security and longer term investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1064fdecc92155663d3b8808178a2388", "text": "\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3", "text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70", "text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e0a649f4daee3afb9ef5f74bc34ea44", "text": "\"For most, confidence comes with knowledge and experience. To understand more about how investing works, read articles about types of investments that you're interested in and browse the questions on this site. To gain experience, start with a \"\"paper money\"\" trading account. Most brokers will allow you to apply for a \"\"fake\"\" account so you can practice trading with simulated money. Once you've built up some confidence, you may wish to start investing a small amount of real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af04010eba37564a0e74dcfc341e05a5", "text": "Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95bb327dabf621795a92207ce1106bb2", "text": "This post has been wrote in 2014, so if you read this text be aware. At the time, and since France does tax a lot investment, I'd suggest you start a PEA and filling in using the lazy investment portfolio. That means buying European and/or French ETFs & index, and hold them as long as you can. You can fill your PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Action) up to 150.000€ for a period of at least 8 years as long as you fill it with European and French stocks. After the period of 8 years your profit is taxed at only mere 15%, instead of the 33% you see in a raw broker account. Since you are young, I think a 100% stocks is something you can hold on. If you can't sleep at night with 100% stocks, take some bonds up to 25%, even more. Anyway, the younger you start investing, the more ahead you may eventually go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e5d09bd5bf8010c91e56c2f024db447", "text": "If you want to retire in 7 years at age 35 and only currently have 150k, and you need to ask this question of how to invest your money (risk free), then you will not be retiring at age 35 nor buying your house. It is possible to do (but not risk free - in fact you will need to take quite a bit of risk) but you would need to have a detailed plan about how you would go about to achieve this goal, what assets you would be investing in, and what risk management you would have in place. If you have to ask this question all you have is a goal but no plan. You probably will need to do plenty of research in the types of investment you prefer and develop a plan to take you to your destination. This could take you a year or 10 years, depending on how motivated you are in acheiving your goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2", "text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24bde5cc34ca02716339d0bb8a4accbc", "text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk", "title": "" }, { "docid": "965faa14f779d2158cfbb2260982ea77", "text": "\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee2c4b844bf6867deea08781a2c05ee9", "text": "\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca345ea66f077eab164938dda4afdc2e", "text": "\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33", "text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f18f367b4b8b041cb81a43befb98db03", "text": "I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "acd6ecb60230cccbe47d3f7ed7d5ef80", "text": "Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund. Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). You will sleep well at night for most of your life.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02c97ee4d736684a28ad22e6d03a7610", "text": "\"I'd like to modify the \"\"loss\"\" idea that's been mentioned in the other two answers. I don't think a retail location needs to be losing money to be a candidate for sale. Even if a retail location is not operating at a loss, there may be incentive to sell it off to free up cash for a better-performing line of business. Many large companies have multiple lines of business. I imagine Sunoco makes money a few ways including: refining the gas and other petroleum products, selling those petroleum products, selling gas wholesale to franchised outlets or other large buyers, licensing their brand to franchised outlets, selling gas and convenience items direct to consumers through its own corporate-owned retail outlets, etc. If a company with multiple lines of business sees a better return on investment in certain businesses, it may make sense to sell off assets in an under-performing business in order to free up the capital tied up by that business, and invest the freed-up capital in another business likely to perform better. So, even \"\"money making\"\" assets are sometimes undesirable relative to other, better performing assets. Another case in which it makes sense to sell an asset that is profitable is when the market is over-valuing it. Sell it dear, and buy it back cheap later.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
964409b0f565eed37a5150e2acbccd41	What are the advantages of a Swiss bank account?	[ { "docid": "0ff97fdc7a3510f25ff7d3820da6ec25", "text": "A lot of Americans have used Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes. However recently several large Swiss banks have started disclosing the details on some of their customers to the IRS. There isn't much security in Swiss banking at this point in time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e3eaacc24784c090d2d5bdb857dcd3a9", "text": "\"This doesn't answer your question, but as an aside, it's important to understand that your second and third bullet points are completely incorrect; while it used to be true that Swiss bank accounts often came with \"\"guarantees\"\" of neutrality and privacy, in recent years even the Swiss banks have been caving to political pressure from many sides (especially US/Obama), with regards to the most extreme cases of criminals. That is to say, if you're a terrorist or a child molester or in possession of Nazi warcrime assets, Swiss banks won't provide the protection you're interested in. You might say \"\"But I'm not a terrorist or a pervert or profiteering of war crimes!\"\" but if you're trying so hard to hide your personal assets, it's worth wondering how much longer until Swiss banks make further concessions to start providing information on PEOPLE_DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING. Not to discourage you, this is just food for thought. The \"\"bulletproof\"\" protection these accounts used to provide has been compromised. I work with online advertising companies, and a number of people I know in the industry get sued on a regular basis for copyright or trademark infringement or spamming; most of these people still trust Swiss bank accounts, because it's still the best protection available for their assets, and because Swiss banks haven't given up details on someone for spamming... yet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0540931e47342a4bd7e2110805f6c79", "text": "For an American it nearly impossible to open a Swiss bank account. Even a Swiss person want to open a bank account, we have to fill out a document, which asks us if we have a greencard or other relationships with the united states. Some Swiss banks have transferred the money of Americans to Singapore to protect their clients. So you see, the Swiss banks do very much for their clients. And yes, we don't ask very much about money ;) And we are a politically neutral country, but we like the United States more than Russia and of course we have enemies, like the ISIS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b99abcb36e9f3b0f6063906d0641295", "text": "\"Here are some reasons why it is advantageous to hold a portion of your savings in other countries: However, it should be noted that there are some drawbacks to holding funds in foreign banks: Don't worry; I haven't forgotten about the elephant in the room. What about tax evasion and money laundering? In general, simply transferring funds to a foreign jurisdiction will do nothing to help you evade taxes or hide evidence of a crime. Pretty much any method you can think of to transfer money is easily traceable, and any method that is difficult to trace is either illegal or heavily-regulated, with stiff penalties if you get caught. There are a few jurisdictions that have very strict banking privacy laws (the Philippines, for example). If you can somehow get the money into a bank account in one of these countries, you might be OK... at least, until that country's government decides (or is pressured) to change its banking privacy laws. But, what would you actually do with that money? Unless you want to go live in that country, you're going to have to transfer the funds out to spend them, and now you're right back on the radar — except now it's even worse, because the fact that the funds come from a suspicious jurisdiction will automatically cause your transfer to get flagged for investigation! This is where money laundering comes into play. There are lots of ways to go about this (exceptionally illegal) activity, many of which do not involve banks at all (at least, not directly). How money laundering works is outside the scope of this question, but in case you are curious, here are a couple of articles about the \"\"dark side\"\" of finance: In short, if you want to break the law, opening a foreign bank account isn't going to help much. In fact, the real crime is that offshore banking has such a criminal reputation in the first place! That said, it is possible to create legal distance between yourself and your money by using a corporate structure, and there are legitimate reasons why you might want to do this. Depending on which jurisdiction(s) you are a tax resident of, you can use this method to: Exactly how to do this is outside the scope of this question, but it's worth thinking about, especially if you have an interest in geopolitically diversifying your financial assets. If you're interested in learning more, I came across a pretty comprehensive article about Offshore Basics that covers how and why to set up offshore legal structures. (and yes, that makes now 4 links from the same site in one post! I promise it's just a coincidence; see disclaimer below) I am a US citizen with bank accounts in several countries (but not Switzerland; there are far better options out there right now). I have no affiliation with the website linked in this answer; while I was doing research for this answer, I found some really good supporting content, and it all just happened to be from the same source.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c41887f452951ca0fff3e00ea632073a", "text": "The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank. Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred. However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest. (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a037db016889cbfb094b7aba3bbf842", "text": "I have worked for BNP (BNP PARIBAS) a french bank. From my experience it is the easiest sale to make when working for a bank. Because saving is sold as a long term investment your client is not likely to close the account any time soon. From this product on you could open a broker account if the client wants to take more risks ( yhea yet another sale). If the client is very keen on no risks, there are insurance products (they make plenty of money from insurance) or callable investments that you can propose. Retail banking works by attracting a maximum number of people and selling them a maximum amount of product. To answer you question is it profitable? I am sure it is not ( right now your savings account costs the bank money because of super low rates in the EU). I think it is all about increasing or maintaining market-share that you see some banks offering some cash just for opening an account. At the moment we have to sell credit cards to people that is where banks make good money. If you would like me to go more in depth on a specific subject i mentioned here just ask. Hope it helped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c7e9fdd7c91b218a2c43b183b06dad3", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531", "text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d140993e72032226919ac7ef175059", "text": "A checking account is one that permits the account holder to write demand drafts (checks), which can be given to other people as payment and processed by the banks to transfer those funds. (Think of a check as a non-electronic equivalent of a debit card transaction, if that makes more sense to you.) Outside of the ability to write checks, and the slightly lower interest rate usually offered to trade off against that convenience, there really is no significant difference between savings and checking accounts. The software needs to be designed to handle checking accounts if it's to be sold in the US, since many of us do still use checks for some transactions. Adding support for other currencies doesn't change that. If you don't need the ability to track which checks have or haven't been fully processed, I'd suggest that you either simply ignore the checking account feature, or use this category separation in whatever manner makes sense for the way you want to manage your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6", "text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a9db00ea0772b57065383a8e332b99a", "text": "Opening account in foreign bank is possible, but you must have strong proofs you use it for legitimate purposes. More chances to get an account if you visit Europe and able to stay, for example, for a week, to visit bank in person and wait for all the checks and approvals. Also keep in mind that there will be deposit/withdraw limits and fees applicable, that are significantly stricter and larger for non-EU citizen. In my opinion, if your amounts are not large, it might not worth it. If amounts are large, you might consider business account rather than personal, as is the example of strong proof I meant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1dcfb9e79ae898f9ee9f928c340c088", "text": "Switzerland was once known for its high regard for private property rights. Recently it is has started to violate those rights by forcing banks to turn over the names of account holders to the US government. Not a great trend. Another aspect that makes Switzerland an attractive place for people and businesses is the Swiss governemnt's neutral policy. The Swiss government is not deploying the Swiss military around the globe to fight terrorism, to spread democracy, to advance its own power, or other such murderous government programs. The Swiss people do not have to worry about the payback that arrives because of such depraved government programs. The Swiss were traditionally extreme advocates of individual gun rights which allows the people to provide protection for themselves against others and against the government. This too is changing (read section on The Enemy Within) in a not so favorable direction. I also belive the Swiss Franc was the last major currency to sever its tie to gold. The currency use to be highly desired due to its tie to gold. I think the currency is still highly regarded but the Swiss central bank is participating in the currency war and has attempted multiple times in the past couple of years to debase its currency so it does not appreciate against the euro or dollar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfb1d579fa57cc2707585d49c1d08d17", "text": "The Livret A is a very specific product. It's tax-exempt and would historically not be available through regular banks. Commercial banks can now offer it but they only collect the money on behalf of the Caisse des dépôts (CDC). The CDC then pays interest to the savers and a commission for the bank. The commission is baked into the system, not charged to the customer directly but since the interest rate is set centrally, banks cannot compete on that. So this is risk-free money for them (but on the flip side it does not help them meet capital adequacy requirements). Other savings account or products have different rules. Another angle to consider is that a livret A was historically very attractive for consumers (and was certainly perceived as such) so that many people would have a checking account at a regular bank and another account at the Caisse d'épargne or the Banque postale just to open a livret A. For commercial banks, the alternative therefore isn't having your money on your checking account vs. your livret A or another savings account, it was having your money on a livret A they administer vs. seeing you run away to another institution. There is also a cap on the livret A and you're not allowed to save more money by opening several of them at different banks. At the same time banks have been complaining that the decrease of the interest rate (and consequently of their commission) makes the whole scheme a lot less interesting for them. For what it's worth, I recently (re)opened a bank account in France after living abroad for a long time and the customer advisor did not seem particularly interested in pushing a livret A.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f36e485e0a7440fb5ee9b39247f2c2c5", "text": "A lot depends on how much is in the account, and whether you expect to be returning (or having any sort of financial dealings) in Europe in the future. My own experience (about 10 years out of date, and with Switzerland) is that the easiest way to transfer reasonable amounts (a few thousand dollars) was simply to get it in $100 bills from the European bank. I also kept the account open for a number of years while living in the US (doing contracting that was paid into the European bank), and could withdraw money from American ATMs. I eventually had to close the account due to issues between the bank and the IRS. I think it was only that particular bank (UBS) that was the problem, though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6848e7ec4c1f2dd2f1436826fa588d0b", "text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d427454233c0d783d21e0a603b04874", "text": "Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2619366ee98c92d3d5591dded0e17043", "text": "You can remotely close the account and transfer the money out to your account in home country. If you have netbanking you can also setup remittance service to your country", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e6aa2924261e912bdbcdaa2d5fed67f", "text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b02a1425b070d95d4ee01a66f4f5f56", "text": "This all depends on your timeline and net worth. If you're short on time before you plan to start spending it or have a large net worth, parking some of your money in CDs is a good idea. If you have lots of time or not much net worth, then index funds are a better bet. Equity or dividend index funds are the way to go when you have 10+ years before you reach your goal. CDs major downside is that they don't beat inflation 1 - 3% a year. This is why you only use them when it's absolutely critical you hold onto every penny of the principal. The reason is because with CDs your 10k is actually losing its value (not the principal) the longer you leave it in CDs. I generally wouldn't recommend CDs unless you are in or approaching your 60s or have assets over 500k. Even still I would limit the use of CDs to no more than 20%. I would view them as catastrophic loss protection.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
07ae718d7df1c77e3d1f39185a7b46b7	Did my salesman damage my credit? What can I do?	[ { "docid": "4343d69b98c82e18a62d67a5bf7d42d0", "text": "This shows the impact of the inquiries. It's from Credit Karma, and reflects my inquiries over the past two years. In my case, I refinanced 2 properties and the hit is after this fact, so my score at 766 is lower than when approved. You can go to Credit Karma and see how your score was impacted. If in fact the first inquiry did this, you have cause for action. In court, you get more attention by having sufficient specific data to support your claim, including your exact damages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca6825a395b2bee9c84e0f46ececc662", "text": "\"At one point in my life I sold cars and from what I saw, three things stick out. Unless the other dealership was in the same network, eg ABC Ford of City A, and ABC Ford of City B, they never had possession of that truck. So, no REAL application for a loan could be sent in to a bank, just a letter of intent, if one was sent at all. With a letter of intent, a soft pull is done, most likely by the dealership, where they then attached that score to the LOI that the bank has an automated program send back an automatic decline, an officer review reply, or a tentative approval (eg tier 0,1,2...8). The tentative approval is just that, Tentative. Sometime after a lender has a loan officer look at the full application, something prompts them to change their offer. They have internal guidelines, but lets say an app is right at the line for 2-3 of the things they look at, they chose to lower the credit tier or decline the app. The dealership then goes back and looks at what other offers they had. Let's say they had a Chase offer at 3.25% and a CapOne for 5.25% they would say you're approved at 3.5%, they make their money on the .25%. But after Chase looks into the app and sees that, let's say you have been on the job for actually 11 months and not 1 year, and you said you made $50,000, but your 1040 shows $48,200, and you have moved 6 times in the last 5 years. They comeback and say no he is not a tier 2 but a tier 3 @ 5.5%. They switch to CapOne and say your rate has in fact gone up to 5.5%. Ultimately you never had a loan to start with - only a letter of intent. The other thing could be that the dealership finance manager looked at your credit score and guessed they would offer 3.5%, when they sent in the LOI it came back higher than he thought. Or he was BSing you, so if you price shopped while they looked for a truck you wouldn't get far. They didn't find that Truck, or it was not what they thought it would be. If a dealership sees a truck in inventory at another dealer they call and ask if it's available, if they have it, and it's not being used as a demo for a sales manager, they agree to send them something else for the trade, a car, or truck or whatever. A transfer driver of some sort hops in that trade, drives the 30 minutes - 6 hours away and comes back so you can sign the Real Application, TODAY! while you're excited about your new truck and willing to do whatever you need to do to get it. Because they said it would take 2-5 days to \"\"Ship\"\" it tells me it wasn't available. Time Kills Deals, and dealerships know this: they want to sign you TODAY! Some dealerships want \"\"honest\"\" money or a deposit to go get the truck, but reality is that that is a trick to test you to make sure you are going to follow through after they spend the gas and add mileage to a car. But if it takes 2 days+, The truck isn't out there, or the dealer doesn't have a vehicle the other dealership wants back, or no other dealership likes dealing with them. The only way it would take that long is if you were looking for something very rare, an odd color in an unusual configuration. Like a top end model in a low selling color, or configuration you had to have that wouldn't sell well - like you wanted all the options on a car except a cigarette lighter, you get the idea. 99.99% of the time a good enough truck is available. Deposits are BS. They don't setup any kind of real contract, notice most of the time they want a check. Because holding on to a check is about as binding as making you wear a chicken suit to get a rebate. All it is, is a test to see if you will go through with signing the deal. As an example of why you don't let time pass on a car deal is shown in this. One time we had a couple want us to find a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in red with every available option. Total cost was about $85-90k. Only two new Red Escalade hybrids were for sale in the country at the time, one was in New York, and the other was in San Fransisco, and our dealership is in Texas, and neither was wanting to trade with us, so we ended up having to buy the SUV from one of the other dealerships inventory. That is a very rare thing to do by the way. We took a 25% down payment, around $20,000, in a check. We flew a driver to wherever the SUV was and then drove it back to Texas about 4 days later. The couple came back and hated the color, they would not take the SUV. The General Manager was pissed, he spent around $1000 just to bring the thing to Texas, not to mention he had to buy the thing. The couple walked and there was nothing the sales manager, GM, or salesman could do. We had not been able to deliver the car, and ultimately the dealership ate the loss, but it shows that deposits are useless. You can't sell something you don't own, and dealerships know it. Long story short, you can't claim a damage you never experienced. Not having something happen that you wanted to have happen is not a damage because you can't show a real economic loss. One other thing, When you sign the paperwork that you thought was an application, it was an authorization for them to pull your credit and the fine print at the bottom is boiler plate defense against getting sued for everything imaginable. Ours took up about half of one page and all of the back of the second page. I know dealing with car dealerships is hard, working at them is just as hard, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it, however the simplest and smoothest car deals are the ones where you pay full price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1fb8aedb73144090ad3c2c369cc4336", "text": "You can sue them for damages. It would be hard to convince the court that the drop in the credit score was because of that loan, but not unthinkable. Especially if you sue through the small-claims court, where the burden of proof is slightly less formal, you have a chance to win and have them pay the difference in rates that it cost you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "990ee84479564d58ebd1880610c64df2", "text": "Hindsight is 20/20, but I offer some suggestions for how this might have gone down. If you had told the bank what was going on they might have extended the terms of your loan until the truck was ready. Alternatively you might have taken the loan (was it secured on the truck?) and put the money in a savings account until the truck showed up, while asking the dealer to pay the interest on it until the truck showed up. Or you might asked the dealer to supply you with a rental truck until yours showed up. I'm not saying I would have thought of these under the circumstances, but worth trying.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e57f4deb0fd8fe7f89b86f1b55d1942c", "text": "Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8785bed1c0db891da8bbb9ac28373e9d", "text": "The problem is that the reason you find out may be that you are at the car dealer, picked out a car, and getting ready to sign the loan papers with your supposedly good credit, and you are denied for late payment on loans you didn't know you have. Or debt collectors start hounding you. Or you credit card interest rates go up. Or you are charged more for your insurance because you are seen as a bad credit risk. Or you can't rent an apartment. The list is almost endless. It can takes many months and hours spent on the phone to fix these things.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "393ee932bbcbbe5f9751ffa34a64af45", "text": "\"It sounds like you're basing your understanding of your options regarding financing (and even if you need a car) on what the car salesman told you. It's important to remember that a car salesman will do anything and say anything to get you to buy a car. Saying something as simple as, \"\"You have a low credit score, but we can still help you.\"\" can encourage someone who does not realize that the car salesman is not a financial advisor to make the purchase. In conclusion,\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dd39c134b021fc7a9cdd1e9649d9123", "text": "\"Whether or not PayPal itself reports to the credit bureaus, the collector will. That said, you can demand the collector \"\"validate\"\" the debt, which if you were scammed could make for an interesting scenario - PayPal doesn't normally play the role of a creditor, so the very fact that you \"\"owe\"\" them money is an unusual situation in and of itself. I'm not entirely sure how they would go about validating that debt - They haven't provided you any goods or services, you don't have any form of loan outstanding with them... The legitimacy of the \"\"debt\"\" consists entirely of them siding with the other party in a he-said-she-said dispute. I'd be interested to hear what the collector replies with when you demand validation of the debt!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f875773b3931c949ac2f8740ce3d17cc", "text": "I dont think the author really understands why or how credit bureaus work, why they exist, and therefore where the blame exists for incorrect data. No credit bureau wants incorrect data, for obvious reasons, but it happens. That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. The source of the data is always to blame for something being incorrect though. That's banks, utilities companies, etc. A credit bureau can't check any more than they do already. But they can improve how they deal with mistakes or badly matched data. Not sure about how that works in the US, but here in EU there are strict rules about how mistakes are corrected, and how long it takes. As for storing it in block chain.. That wouldn't really solve OPs problem with credit bureaus. Someone still needs to collect and match data, and that's arguably harder than securing the data in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38e6f994948ad1b2242f8d7044c77cf4", "text": "People can and do intentionally hurt other people's credit scores all the time. This is why there are so many services to get your credit report checked, because it is very possibly that somebody did use your social security number to get a mortgage on a house or a car or open credit cards you didn't even know about, or even collections efforts you didn't know about. It is possible that organizations hard pulled your account multiple times and paid for it. The deterrents are inadequate and ultimately leave you with the messed up credit worthiness, regardless if civil or criminal charges were levied.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d643ed047c1d902947122689b38d25b", "text": "\"Banks have a financial, and regulational duty called \"\"Know your customer\"\", established to avoid a number of historical problems occurring again, such as money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, etc. Thanks to the scale, and scope of the problem (millions of customers, billions of transactions a day), the way they're handling this usually involves fuzzy logics matching, looking for irregular patterns, problem escalation, and other warning signs. When exceeding some pre-set limit, these signal clues are then filtered, and passed on for human inspection. Needless to say, these algorithms are not perfect, although, thanks to financial pressure, they are improving. In order to understand why your trading account has been suspended, it's useful to look at the incentives: false positives -suspending your trade, and assuming you guilty until proven otherwise- could cost them merely your LTV (lifetime value of customer -how much your business brings in as profit); while false negatives -not catching you while engaging in activities listed above- might cost them multi-month investigations, penalties, and court. Ultimately, this isn't against you. I've been with the bank for 15 years and the money in the accounts has been very slowly accumulated via direct-deposit paychecks over that time. From this I gather the most likely explanation, is that you've hit somekind of account threshold, that the average credit-happy customers usually do not exceed, which triggered a routine checkup. How do you deal with it? Practice puppetry! There is only one way to survive angry customers emotionally: you have to realize that they’re not angry at you; they’re angry at your business, and you just happen to be a convenient representative of that business. And since they’re treating you like a puppet, an iconic stand-in for the real business, you need to treat yourself as a puppet, too. Pretend you’re a puppeteer. The customer is yelling at the puppet. They’re not yelling at you. They’re angry with the puppet. Your job is to figure out, “gosh, what can I make the puppet say that will make this person a happy customer?” In an investigation case, go with boredom: The puppet doesn't care, have no feelings, and is eternally patient. Figure out what are the most likely words that will have the matter \"\"mentally resolved\"\" from the investigator's point of view, tell them what they have to hear, and you'll have case closed in no time. Hope this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "731e7426b1c10079a551d93a3bc2c00d", "text": "If you know that you have a reasonable credit history, and you know that your FICO score is in the 690-neighborhood, and the dealer tells you that you have no credit history, then you also know one of two things: Either way, you should walk away from the deal. If the dealer is willing to lie to you about your credit score, the dealer is also willing to give you a bad deal in other respects. Consider buying a cheaper used car that has been checked out by a mechanic of your choice. If possible, pay cash; if not, borrow as small an amount as possible from a credit union, bank, or even a very low-interest rate credit card. (Credit cards force you to pay off the loan quickly, and do not tie up your car title. I still have not managed to get my credit union loan off of my car title, ten years after I paid it off.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316", "text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbd9dfe952f74b25dbcfbe52b673e532", "text": "\"A day or so later I get an email from the mattress company where the rep informs me that they will need to issue me a paper check for the full amount and that I would have to contact Affirm to stop charging me. To which I rapidly answered \"\"Please confirm that with Affirm prior to mailing anything out. On my end the loan was cancelled.\"\" To which the rep replied \"\"confirmed. It has been cancelled.\"\" I think your communication could have been more explicit mentioning that not only was the loan cancelled, you got your initial payments. You have not paid for the mattress. The refund if any should go to Affirm. The Rep has only confirmed that loan has been cancelled. at what point, if any, am i free to use this money? I was planning to just let it sit there until the shoe drops and just returning. But for how long is too long? Sooner or later the error would get realized and you would have to pay this back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55424864462f469b1beffbe1d39f8ba0", "text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f701d2150bdb4cf1031c23205676031e", "text": "Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f2d7cb8ce82aa73b1882a63e63724e8", "text": "\"Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future. Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house. So when you go back to buy another car they'll say \"\"fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.\"\" I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future. This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde", "text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a29abe11d3792ac3fa82a44f4a5d3a09", "text": "Here is an IRS citation to support my comment above - Exceptions. The 10% tax will not apply if distributions before age 59 ½ are made in any of the following circumstances: Made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the participant) on or after the death of the participant, Made because the participant has a qualifying disability, Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.), Made to a participant after separation from service if the separation occurred during or after the calendar year in which the participant reached age 55, Made to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), Made to a participant for medical care up to the amount allowable as a medical expense deduction (determined without regard to whether the participant itemizes deductions), Timely made to reduce excess contributions, Timely made to reduce excess employee or matching employer contributions, Timely made to reduce excess elective deferrals, or Made because of an IRS levy on the plan. Made on account of certain disasters for which IRS relief has been granted.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bed4457d3d6824c1151bf2dd43d3ea9f	Will I be able to purchase land?	[ { "docid": "9885f2fc4e6855fbea8952244ceab08d", "text": "If there is land for sale, you can buy it. The United States doesn't have many restrictions on the purchase of land. However, you need to be able to afford it. Dependent on where you are looking $20,000 can either be a lot or very little land, I suspect that the question you were looking to ask is 'can I afford it?'. Have a look around, there should be plenty of places for you to find land for sale. As for credit, it is more important that you don't build bad credit. With things like mortgages, your salary is likely to be more important than your credit score alone, but no one will give you a dime if you have a record of not paying your bills.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30c592d44c947ee13ed8d67dc292d154", "text": "\"Here are some important things to think about. Alan and Denise Fields discuss them in more detail in Your New House. Permanent work. Where do you want to live? Are there suitable jobs nearby? How much do they pay? Emergency fund. Banks care that you have \"\"reserves\"\" (and/or an unsecured line of credit) in case you have a run of bad luck. This also helps with float the large expenses when closing a loan. Personal line of credit. Who are you building for? If you are not married, then you should consider whether building a home makes that easier, or harder. If you hope to have kids, you should consider whether your home will make it easier to have kids, or harder. If you are married (or seriously considering it), make sure that your spouse helps with the shopping, and is in agreement on the priorities and choices. If you are not married, then what will you do if/when you get married? Will you sell? expand? build another house on the same lot? rent the home out? Total budget. How much can the lot, utilities, permits, taxes, financing charges, building costs, and contingency allowance come to? Talk with a banker about how much you can afford. Talk with a build-on-your-lot builder about how much house you can get for that budget. Consider a new mobile or manufactured home. But if you do choose one, ask your banker how that affects what you can borrow, and how it affects your rates and terms. Talk with a good real estate agent about how much the resale value might be. Finished lot budget. How much can you budget for the lot, utilities, permits required to get zoning approval, fees, interest, and taxes before you start construction? Down payment. It sounds like you have a plan for this. Loan underwriting. Talk with a good bank loan officer about what their expectations are. Ask about the \"\"front-end\"\" and \"\"back-end\"\" Debt-To-Income ratios. In Oregon, I recommend Washington Federal for lot loans and construction loans. They keep all of their loans, and service the loans themselves. They use appraisers who are specially trained in evaluating new home construction. Their appraisers tend to appraise a bit low, but not ridiculously low like the incompetent appraisers used by some other banks in the area. (I know two banks with lots of Oregon branches that use an appraiser who ignores 40% of the finished, heated area of some to-be-built homes.) Avoid any institution (including USAA and NavyFed) that outsources their lending to PHH. Lot loan. In Oregon, Washington Federal offers lot loans with 30% down payments, 20-year amortization, and one point, on approved credit. The interest rate can be a fixed rate, but is typically a few percentage points per year higher than for a mortgage secured by a permanent house. If you have the financial wherewithal to start building within two years, Washington Federal also offers short-term lot loans. Ask about the costs of appraisals, points, and recording fees. Rent. How much will it cost to rent a place to live, between when you move back to Oregon, and when your new home is ready to move into? Commute. How much time will it take to get from your new home to work? How much will it cost? (E.g., car ownership, depreciation, maintenance, insurance, taxes, fuel? If public transportation is an option, how much will it cost?) Lot availability. How many are there to choose from? Can you talk a farmer into selling off a chunk of land? Can you homestead government land? How much does a lot cost? Is it worth getting a double lot (or an extra large lot)? Utilities. Do you want to live off the grid? Are you willing to make the choices needed to do that? (E.g., well, generator, septic system, satellite TV and telephony, fuel storage) If not, how much will it cost to connect to such systems? (For practical purposes, subtract twice the value of these installation costs from the cost of a finished lot, when comparing lot deals.) Easements. These provide access to your property, access for others through your property, and affect your rights. Utility companies often ask for far more rights than they need. Until you sign on the dotted line, you can negotiate them down to just what they need. Talk to a good real estate attorney. Zoning. How much will you be allowed to build? (In terms of home square footage, garage square footage, roof area, and impermeable surfaces.) How can the home be used? (As a business, as a farm, how many unrelated people can live there, etc.) What setbacks are required? How tall can the building(s) be? Are there setbacks from streams, swamps, ponds, wetlands, or steep slopes? Choosing a builder. For construction loans, banks want builders who will build what is agreed upon, in a timely fashion. If you want to build your own house, talk to your loan officer about what the bank expects in a builder. Plansets and permits. The construction loan process. If you hire a general contractor, and if you have difficulties with the contractor, you might be forced to refuse to accept some work as being complete. A good bank will back you up. Ask about points, appraisal charges, and inspection fees. Insurance during construction. Some companies have good plans -- if the construction takes 12 months or less. Some (but not all) auto insurance companies also offer good homeowners' insurance for homes under construction. Choose your auto insurance company accordingly. Property taxes. Don't forget to include them in your post-construction budget. Homeowners' insurance. Avoid properties that need flood insurance. Apply a sanity check to flood maps -- some of them are unrealistic. Strongly consider earthquake insurance. Don't forget to include these costs in your post-construction budget. Energy costs. Some jurisdictions require you to calculate how large a heating system you need. Do not trust their design temperatures -- they may not allow for enough heating during a cold snap, especially if you have a heat pump. (Some heat pumps work at -10°F -- but most lose their effectiveness between 10°F and 25°F.) You can use these calculations, in combination with the number of \"\"heating degree days\"\" and \"\"cooling degree days\"\" at your site, to accurately estimate your energy bills. If you choose a mobile or manufactured home, calculate how much extra its energy bills will be. Home design. Here are some good sources of ideas: A Pattern Language, by Christopher Alexander. Alexander emphasizes building homes and neighborhoods that can grow, and that have niches within niches within niches. The Not-So-Big House, by Sarah Susanka. This book applies many Alexander's design patterns to medium and large new houses. Before the Architect. The late Ralph Pressel emphasized the importance of plywood sheathing, flashing, pocket doors, wide hallways, wide stairways, attic trusses, and open-truss or I-joist floor systems. Lots of outlets and incandescent lighting are good too. (It is possible to have too much detail in a house plan, and too much room in a house. For examples, see any of his plans.) Tim Garrison, \"\"the builder's engineer\"\". Since Oregon is in earthquake country -- and the building codes do not fully reflect that risk -- emphasize that you want a building that would meet San Jose, California's earthquake code.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5f955cb24bfb9abd199937a3ff0cb7f8", "text": "Sounds feasible. I make $45000 a year, with two car payments, credit card and student loan debt. Also, my wife doesn't work. I was approved for a $116000 house with a USDA loan. There are limits or how much debt you can have when applying for a USDA (sorry, I can't remember off the top of my head) and you'll also be getting the house inspected under different regulations. For instance, we couldn't get approved until the seller put a handrail on a set of exterior stairs. That regulation is specific to USDA along with a few others. I'm living in southern Indiana and this just happened a couple months ago for us. Make sure you have some money set aside for various things like a lawn mower and if the siding blows off the night after you move in (yup, that happened). Also, shop around for homeowner's insurance. We did some hunting, and we found a provider who was willing to price match and ended up saving some money on our car insurance as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1a292f013daf4af072d7952825efd9a", "text": "Perhaps I can: my city is full of towers of Chinese investor owned condos that were purchased to gain EB5 visas. These visas require a $500k investment in the US, in an economically depressed area. The census tracts were gerrymandered together to make a nice part of town qualify. They were sold with 30 year property tax abatements, and at the end of that period they will likely have to pay something like 50k/yr in taxes, which is likely about what they will be renting for. These condos do not exist to be lived in, but have manufactured a huge bubble in property value because of the visa program. Jared Kushner is a primary investor in this vehicle. These will crash if there are changes to this program or any change that forces more units on the market. Otherwise they'll crash in 25-30 years when nobody wants a timebomb with massive expenses incoming. The other bubble is of course the huge real estate bubble China is creating within its own borders, which rivals the real estate bubble within US borders, both of which are driven by unsustainable low interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73374d3ddd7f245a3c4140b2d9752c6d", "text": "I'd like to know what the property taxes on something like that would be. In either event - there are 6,000'^2 houses in my neighorhood for more than $5M - having a 1,000,000'^2 house for a year would be awesome. One floor for paintball, one for a greenhouse, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15b788b4c1659b1bb97b9e014bb2e216", "text": "You're off to a great start. Here are the steps I would take: 1.) Pay off any high-interest debt. 2.) Keep six to twelve months in a highly liquid emergency fund. If the banks aren't safe, also consider having one or two months of cash or cash-equivalents on the premises. 3.) Rent a larger apartment, if possible, until you've saved more. The cost of the land and construction will consume a very large portion of your net worth. Given the historical political instability in that region, mentioned by the previous comments, I would hesitate to put such a large percentage of your wealth in to real estate. 4.) Get a brokerage account that's insured and well known. If you're willing to take the five percent hit to move assets offshore, then consider Vanguard. I'm not sure if they'll give you an account but they're generally acknowledged as an amazing broker in the US with low fees and amazing funds. Five percent (12,500) is worth it in my opinion. As you accumulate more wealth, you can stop moving cash overseas and keep a larger mix domestically. 5.) Invest in your business and yourself even more. As far as finding new investment opportunities, I would go through the list of all the typical major asset classes and consider the pros and cons: fixed-income, stocks, currencies, real estate / REITs, own a small business, commodities etc.,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6006d5d44a26b2d1418cbde824c60d6", "text": "Ok, see that was my thinking too. Historically, stocks and land values have always gone up, even after the depression. So, it seems to me, that if you have a buy and hold strategy with a horizon of 10-20 years, then you should be fine. Is my thinking realistic along those lines?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "782c618d2c4d91bfd53884f278be5636", "text": "Some lenders will make loans for vacant land, others will not. You have to discuss with local bank what are your plan for the land: live in the old mobile home; install a new mobile home; build a new house; Sell it to a developer; use it for camping... Is the property part of a development with other mobile homes? If so there may be complications regarding the use and rights of the property. Some local jurisdictions also want to eliminate mobile homes, so they may put limitations on the housing options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb3104c0506d1b602626ee7fdc41e6eb", "text": "\"Do you know if you were approached by a carrier or a tower vendor? Edit/addendum: As someone in the telecommunications industry, I will say that you should NOT lease to a vendor who will sublease the space to the phone companies for a profit. Depending on the availability of space, the population of the area, and the value of the location, and the amount and size of hardware to be installed, the rental pricing can vary wildly. A cell site on a choice tall building in Chicago, NYC, Boston, LA, etc., can go for over $25000 per year (more in the case of rental of inside equipment room). On the other hand, renting space on a church steeple in the middle of a low population rural town, with the equipment installed in a gated paddock at ground level, may only net around $1500 per month. A \"\"small cell\"\" site, which is actually small enough to put on a lamp post or utility pole, can go for around $250-750 per month. A turf contractor/tower vendor actually leasing a chunk of land to build a structure whose space will be leased out to telecoms should be expected to pay between $2500 and 8000 per month depending on the value of your site. This value is determined by land form details like elevation, nearby tall forests (can the tower \"\"see\"\" over the tree line), terrain contours, and need (local population/tourist/traveler numbers). Carriers prefer to lease from vendors rather than building their own structures, but roof top sites are a different story. Carriers are generally more than happy to work with you to lease a portion of your tall building's roof. FYI... If they offer to compensate you for the electrical requirements if they cannot get their own meter in, don't worry. A cell site uses less than 1000 watts, which translates to about $.10-15 per hour in most locations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b3b2e5062878bf61abca53309a877dc", "text": "Obviously you're missing that there is no house on the land so the cost comparison between a house and land isn't terribly valid. The land might not have connections to the municipal sewage/power/electrical and may need zoning changes and permits for those connections. You're missing that you don't know how to design and build a house so you'll need to hire people for those tasks; then live through the process, headaches, and probable budget overruns. Edit: You're also missing that lending for speculative land development is significantly different from lending for a single family home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cad08203b8f48e008c0cabc8bd1d5aad", "text": "Many developing countries have restrictions on foreigners buying land. For example, Thailand. If you ever move there, you will never be able to own any land. Period. But countries like India go even further. If you want to buy some land in J&K province, you can't even if you are Indian. What if you marry a woman from J&K? Nope... then you are both screwed and both of you can't buy land in J&K. Similar restrictions are in place for other provinces (HP, AP, etc) Imagine living in New Jersey and never being able to buy land in Pennsylvania... that's India. Building and hoping no one notices worked 15 years ago, but not anymore. (unless you're rich and connected, of course.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6a493fd06e1f7e0d9715e41eb812c1", "text": "I lucked out and bought a beat little 640 sq. ft. bungalow in S.E. Mass for short money in 2008 hoping that I'd be able to build up some equity and upsell into a nicer house (i.e. one with more than three rooms and a roof that doesn't leak). The good news (I guess) is that I'll be paid off in just a few years, but the bad news is that this little bungalow will have to do for a long time. House prices in the places that I'd like to live are through the roof, and if you're not a cash buyer you're pretty well fucked. I can't afford to sell without the hope that I'd be able to actually buy another house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75d3f2199306cece88150186a9e57133", "text": "The answer is generally yes. Depending on your circumstances and where you live, you may be able to get help through a federal, state, or lender program that:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d188aef0f2e7774ca9ec028627a9339", "text": "\"If you are living near a land-grant university, you might be able to find help from the university's Extension Service. In many land-grant universities (the land grants were given to universities formed for the purpose of improving \"\"agricultural and mechanical arts\"\"), the Extension Services have expanded beyond farm-related services to include horticulture, food and nutrition counseling, consumer finance, money management and budgeting advice etc. See, for example this site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be3f16ed671bd21980af1861a07fa877", "text": "If I'm not mistaken, using dairy cattle to buy more dairy cattle is already common practice in Kansas. Why it is not widespread is more because the banks concerned don't have the necessary expertise to value / monitor / resell these assets when necessary. They are tricky to deal with because they grow / breed / die, unlike your house.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e8b6485a967e32abfb8ea79f6350a0d", "text": "> To me, it's crazy that even Indians can't buy land in their own country. What? How does that work? If you want to build a building you... just take a piece of land and hope nobody stops you?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d422c12af9dd3cdf0b821af637c0fe7", "text": "Your only option might be finding a seller-financed property with a motivated seller who is willing to take the risk of loaning you money. However, be prepared to pay a hefty rate on that loan if you can even pull it off.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b417bc88f954c1cd2baeb26293458006	Is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets?	[ { "docid": "546e0c06691b487e035f23ed55eccc9a", "text": "\"I am strongly skeptical of this. In fact, after reading your question, I did the following: I wrote a little program in python that \"\"simulates\"\" a stock by flipping a coin. Each time the coin comes up heads, the stock's value grows by 1. Each time the coin comes up tails, the stock's value drops by 1. I then group, say, 50 of these steps into a \"\"day\"\", and for each day I look at opening, closing, maximum and minimum. This is then graphed in a candlestick chart. Funny enough, those things look exactly like the charts analysts look at. Here are a few examples: If you want to be a troll, show these to a technical analyst and ask them which of these stocks you should sell short and which of them you should buy. You can try this at home, I posted the code here and it only needs Python with a few extra packages (Numpy and Pylab, should both be in the SciPy package). In reply to a comment from JoeTaxpayer, let me add some more theory to this. My code actually performs a one-dimensional random walk. Now Joe in the comments says that an infinite number of flips should approach the zero line, but that is not exactly correct. In fact, there is a high chance to end up far from the zero line, because the expected distance from the start for a random walk with N steps is sqrt(N). What does indeed approach the zero line is if you took a bunch of these random walks and then performed the average over those. There is, however, one important aspect in which this random walk differs from the stock market: The random walk can go down as far as it likes, whereas a stock has a bottom below which it cannot fall. Reaching this bottom means the company is bankrupt and gets removed from the market. This means that the total stock market, which we might interpret as a sum of random walks, does indeed have a bias towards upwards movement, since I'm only averaging over those random walks that don't go below a certain threshold. But you can really only benefit from this effect by being broadly diversified.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35ecc70f06b1d857067088599dea1266", "text": "\"Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from \"\"confirmation bias\"\" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and \"\"miss\"\" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec6a62c3f49a4773caab0a81a1bb78e0", "text": "\"I interned for about six months at a firm that employed a few technical analysts, so I'll try to provide what little information I can. Since the bulk of the intra-day trading was decided algorithmically, technical analysts had two main functions: This basically boils down to my answer to your question. There are still enough people, trading firms, etc. who believe in candlestick charting and other visually subjective patterns that if you notice a trend, pattern, etc. before the majority of traders observing, you may be able to time the market successfully and profit. This is becoming increasingly dangerous, however, because of the steps I outlined above. Over time, the charting patterns that have been proven effective (often in many firms individually since the algorithms are all proprietary) are incorporated into computer algorithms, so the \"\"traders\"\" you're competing with to see the pattern are increasingly low-latency computer clusters less than a few blocks from the exchange. Summary: Candlestick charting, along with other forms of subjective technical analysis, has its believers, and assuming enough of these believers trade the standard strategies based on the standard patterns, one could conceivably time the market with enough skill to anticipate these traders acting on the pattern and therefore profit. However, the marginal benefits of doing so are decreasing rapidly as computers take over more trading responsibility. Caveats: I know you're in Australia, where the market penetration of HF/algo traders isn't as high as in the US, so it might be a few more years before the marginal benefits cease to be profitable; that being said, if various forms of technical analysis proved wildly profitable in Australia, above and beyond profits available in other markets, rest assured that large American or British trading firms would already have moved in. My experience is limited to one trading firm, so I certainly can't speak for the industry as a whole. I know I didn't address candlestick charts specifically, but since they're only one piece of visual technical analysis, I tried to address the issue as a whole. This somewhat ties into the debate between fundamental or technical analysis, which I won't get into. Investopedia has a short article on the subject. As I said, I won't get into this because while it's a nice debate for small traders, at large trading firms, they don't care; they want to make profit, and any strategy that can be vetted, whether it's fundamental, technical, or astrological, will be vetted. I want to add more information to my answer to clear up some of the misconceptions in the comments, including those talking about biased studies and a lack of evidence for or against technical analysis (and candlestick charts; I'll explore this relationship further down). It's important to keep in mind that charting methods, including candlestick charts, are visually subjective ways of representing data, and that any interpretations drawn from such charts should, ideally, represent objective technical indicators. A charting method is only as good as the indicators it's used to represent. Therefore, an analysis of the underlying indicators provides a suitable analysis for the visual medium in which they're presented. One important study that evaluates several of these indicators is Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation by Lo, Mamaysky, and Wang. Lest anyone accuse its authors of bias, I should point out that not only is it published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (a highly reputable organization within economics and finance), but also that the majority of its authors come from MIT's Sloan school, which holds a reputation second to none. This study finds that several technical indicators, e.g. head-and-shoulder, double-bottom, and various rectangle techniques, do provide marginal value. They also find that although human judgment is still superior to most computational algorithms in the area of visual pattern recognition, ... technical analysis can be improved by using automated algorithms Since this paper was published in 2000, computing power and statistical analysis have gained significant ground against human ability to identify and exploit for visual pattern detection like candlestick charts. Second, I suggest you look into David Aaronson's book, Evidence-Based Technical Analysis: Applying the Scientific Method and Statistical Inference to Trading Signals. He finds similar results to the Lo, et. al. paper, in that some technical indicators do add value to the investment process, but those that do are those that can be represented mathematically and thus programmed directly into trading algorithms (thus bypassing visual tools like candlestick charts). He describes how studies, including Lo, et al., have found that head and shoulders patterns are worse than random, i.e. you would earn higher returns if you simply traded at random. That point is worth than repeating. If a day-trader is using a candlestick chart and using head-and-shoulders patterns as part of their toolkit, he's rolling the dice when he uses that pattern and returns that come from its application come from chance. This reminds me of that old story about a company that sends out pamphlets predicting the results of sports games, complete with \"\"strategies\"\" and \"\"data\"\" to back up the predictions. The company sends out several versions of the pamphlet every game, each predicting a different winner. Given a large enough sample size, by the end of the season, there are a few people who have received a pamphlet that accurately predicted the winner for every game and they're convinced the system is perfect. The others weren't so lucky, however. Relying on candlestick charts and TA patterns that are relics from the pre-computerized era is reassuring to some traders and gives them a sense of control and \"\"beating the market,\"\" but how long will chance remain on your side? This is why I maintain that visual tools like candlestick charts are a slowly dying medium. They certainly still add value to some trading firms, which is why Bloomberg terminals still ship with this functionality built in, but as more and more research shows, automated algorithms and statistical indicators can provide more value. It's also important to think about whether the majority of the value added by visual tools like candlestick charts comes in the form of profit or a sense of security to traders who learned the field using them over the past few decades. Finally, it's extremely important to realize that the actions of retail investors in the equities market cannot begin to represent the behaviors of the market as a whole. In the equities markets alone, trading firms and institutional investors dwarf retail investors, and the difference in scale is even more vastly pronounced in derivatives and currency markets. The fact that some retail investors use candlestick charts and the technical indicators they (hope) underlie them provides nothing but minor anecdotal evidence as to their effectiveness.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "adeb80ddb87ca61ed1643fd255493a12", "text": "Candlesticks and TA are a relic of pre-computer trading, period. Market makers use sophisticated algorithms not for trading, but manipulations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b809e27c7650e4615cd9a31b7744ab4f", "text": "From my 15 years of experience, no technical indicator actually ever works. Those teaching technical indicators are either mostly brokers or broker promoted so called technical analysts. And what you really lose in disciplined trading over longer period is the taxes and brokerages. That is why you will see that teachers involved in this field are mostly technical analysts because they can never make money in real markets and believe that they did not adhere to rules or it was an exception case and they are not ready to accept facts. The graph given above for coin flip is really very interesting and proves that every trade you enter has 50% probability of win and lose. Now when you remove the brokerage and taxes from win side of your game, you will always lose. That is why the Warren Buffets of the world are never technical analysts. In fact, they buy when all technical analysts fails. Holding a stock may give pain over longer period but still that is only way to really earn. Diversification is a good friend of all bulls. Another friend of bull is the fact that you can lose 100% but gain any much as 1000%. So if one can work in his limits and keep investing, he can surely make money. So, if you have to invest 100 grand in 10 stocks, but 10 grand in each and then one of the stocks will multiply 10 times in long term to take out cost and others will give profit too... 1-2 stocks will fail totally, 2-3 will remain there where they were, 2-3 will double and 2-3 will multiply 3-4 times. Investor can get approx 15% CAGR earning from stock markets... Cheers !!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf6b36c499fd17302193308d6f882be8", "text": "\"From what I have read from O'Neil to Van Tharp, etc, etc, no one can pick winners more than 75% of the time regardless of the system they use and most traders consider themselves successful if 60% of the trades are winners and 40% are losers. So I am on the side that the chart is only a reflection of the past and cannot tell you reliably what will happen in the future. It is difficult to realize this but here is a simple way for you to realize it. If you look at a daily chart and let's say it is 9:30 am at the open and you ask a person to look at the technical indicators, look at the fundamentals and decide the direction of the market by drawing the graph, just for the next hour. He will realize in just a few seconds that he will say to him or her self \"\"How on earth do you expect me to be able to do that?\"\" He will realize very quickly that it is impossible to tell the direction of the market and he realizes it would be foolhardy to even try. Because Mickey Mantle hit over 250 every year of his career for the first 15 years it would be a prudent bet to bet that he could do it again over the span of a season, but you would be a fool to try to guess if the next pitch would be a ball or a strike. You would be correct about 50% of the time and wrong about 50% of the time. You can rely on LARGER PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR OVER YEARS, but short hourly or even minute by minute prediction is foolish. That is why to be a trader you have to keep on trading and if you keep on trading and cut your losses to 1/2 of your wins you will eventually have a wonderful profit. But you have to limit your risk on any one trade to 1% of your portfolio. In that way you will be able to trade at least 100 times. do the math. trade a hundred times. lose 5% and the next bet gain 10%. Keep on doing it. You will have losses sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row and also wins sometimes of 3 or 4 in a row but overall if you keep on trading even the best traders are generally only \"\"right\"\" 60% of the time. So lets do the math. If you took 100 dollars and make 100 trades and the first trade you made 10% and reinvested the total and the second trade you lost 5% of that and continue that win/loss sequence for 100 trades you would have 1284 dollars minus commissions. That is a 1200% return in one hundred trades. If you do it in a roth IRA you pay no taxes on the short term gains. It is not difficult to realize that the stock market DOES TREND. And the easiest way to make 10% quickly is to in general trade 3x leveraged funds or stocks that have at least 3 beta from the general index. Take any trend up and count the number of days the stock is up and it is usually 66-75% and take any down trend and it is down 66-75% of the days. So if you bet on the the beginning of a day when the stock was up and if you buy the next day about 66-75% of the time the stock will also be up. So the idea is to realize that 1/3 of the time at least you will cut your losses but 2/3 of the time you will be up then next day as well. So keep holding the position based on the low of the previous day and as the stock rises to your trend line then tighten the stock to the low of the same day or just take your profit and buy something else. But losing 1/3 times is just part of \"\"the unpredictable\"\" nature of the stock market which is causes simply because there are three types of traders all betting at the same time on the same stock. Day traders who are trading from 1 to 10 times a day, swing traders trading from 1 day to several weeks and buy and hold investors holding out for long term capital gains. They each have different price targets and time horizons and THAT DIFFERENCE is what makes the market move. ONE PERSON'S SHORT TERM EXIT PRICE AT A PROFIT IS ANOTHER PERSONS LONG TERM ENTRY POINT and because so many are playing at the same time with different time horizons, stop losses and exit targets it is impossible to draw the price action or volume. But it is possible to cut your losses and ride your winners and if you keep on doing that you have a very fine return indeed.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0790763ce1214e0a9fa81798f3e2e128", "text": "I've used BigCharts (now owned by MarketWatch.com) for a while and really like them. Their tools to annotate charts are great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04717255289992a30cb660ae6fd4c2a6", "text": "\"I think that pattern is impossible, since the attempt to apply the second half would seem to prevent executing the first. Could you rewrite that as \"\"After the stock rises to $X, start watching for a drop of $Y from peak price; if/when that happens, sell.\"\" Or does that not do what you want? (I'm not going to comment on whether the proposed programmed trading makes sense. Trying to manage things at this level of detail has always struck me as glorified guesswork.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8838933d3993e7b20282d877697b072f", "text": "John Person has a pattern called the High Close Doji that is probably the most reliable signal in the world of candle patterns. I would check out Candle Stick and Pivot Point Trade Triggers. It all I use in trading stocks + forex.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d56cf7b2f6193eac92d57bd4a84e4d3b", "text": "\"The answer to each of your questions is no. It is important to appreciate that the \"\"quoted\"\" ticker price may be delayed by say 15 minutes, and thus is not \"\"real-time.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56e12ee55d82f3f3afee28cd783dcf28", "text": "\"By definition, there are no guaranteed profits. There are sometimes arbitrage opportunities, which are more accessible to some investors than others. In this case, I'm not referring to HFT as that is covered elsewhere on this site already. At certain times, in certain equity markets, candlestick charts were used for profitable trading, though more for trades set up for weeks or months, not day trading. I am referring specifically to Nikkei 225 equities, in the 1980's and 1990's. I don't know why it was effective, and it hasn't worked for me since then. I recommend reading and heeding this answer. Some people DO use technical analysis (see \"\"TA is not...\"\" section) as a primary trading strategy, but they are not going to divulge their methods, not here nor anywhere else.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c974fce2e0de21ef5938bef66aad614f", "text": "\"Using your example link, I found the corresponding chart for a stock that trades on London Stock Exchange: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RIO.L#symbol=RIO.L;range=1d As you can see there, the chart runs from ~8:00am to ~4:30pm, and as I write this post it is only 2:14pm Eastern Time. So clearly this foreign chart is using a foreign time zone. And as you can see from this Wikipedia page, those hours are exactly the London Stock Exchange's hours. Additionally, the closing price listed above the graph has a timestamp of \"\"11:35AM EST\"\", meaning that the rightmost timestamp in the graph (~4:30pm) is equal to 11:35AM EST. 16:30 - 11:30 = 5 hours = difference between London and New York at this time of year. So those are two data points showing that Yahoo uses the exchange's native time zone when displaying these charts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f98ff6cd4c67451f3a35795ff4a6a4e", "text": "While it is true that this formula may have historically outperformed the market you have to keep one important thing in mind: once the formula is out in the open, the market inefficiency will disappear. Here is what I mean. Historically there have always been various inefficiencies in the market structure. Some people were able to find these and make good money off them. Invariably these people tend to write books about how they did it. What happens next is that lots of people get in on the game and now you have lots of buyers going after positions that used to be under-priced, raising demand and thus prices for these positions. This is how inter-exchange arbitrage disappeared. Its how high frequency trading is running itself into the ground. If enough demand is generated for an inefficiency, the said inefficiency disappears or the gains get so small that you can only make money off it with large amounts of capital. Keep in mind, as Graham said, there is no silver bullet in the stock market since you do not hold any data that is unavailable to everyone else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46c79829c81784b5578a8cf7baca2724", "text": "\"You cannot just read one book and some articles on Technical Analysis and some indicators and expect to be an expert and everything to just start falling into place and give you signals that will tell you when to buy and sell with precision and massive profits all the time. It is like someone reading a book on how to drive a car and then expecting to drive flawlessly the first time they sit in the driver's seat, or someone reading a book on brain surgery and expecting to be able to operate on a live patient the next day. It looks like you are using 3 or 4 indicators to get daily buy and sell signals on a daily chart for an EFT you're looking to hold for decades. So firstly you are using short term indicators for a long term outlook. You need to decide what timeframe you plan to hold your investments for and use chart periods and indicators that suit that timeframe. Secondly, each indicator can be used in a number of ways and the settings you use for each indicator can determine whether you get earlier or later signals. Also, you need to work out which indicators work well together and are complementary, compared to those that don't work well together and give conflicting signals. All this information will come together for you the more you read about and practice the art of Technical Analysis. If your timeframe is very long-term (decades) I would be using mainly a weekly chart, with a longer period MA, the ROC indicator and possibly some trend lines. Keep it simple. The price itself is very important too. You can determine when a trend is starting or has ended purely using the price. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows, so on the weekly chart if there is a lower high followed by a lower low - this could be the end of the uptrend. If we get a lower low followed by a lower high - this again could be the end of the uptrend. These could be a good time to start getting cautious and maybe looking to sell. If you are using stop losses (which I recommend) this may be a good time to tighten your stops. Similarly, a downtrend is defined as lower lows and lower highs. If we get a higher low followed by a higher high it could be the end of the downtrend and maybe the start of an uptrend. This could be a good time to start getting ready to buy. You need to learn about how and where to set your buy and sell orders (including stops) and whether you wait for confirmation when you get a signal. All this takes some time, but the more you read, the more you attend live events and the more you practice the more they will become second nature. In order to get the best out of Technical Analysis you will need to learn, plan, practice and execute. A good book to help you prepare your trading plan is \"\"Smart Trading Plans\"\" by Justine Pollard. One of my favourite books is \"\"The Complete Trading Course - Price Patterns, Strategies, Setups, and Execution Tactics\"\" by Corey Rosenbloom. And another good book is \"\"Trade your Way to Financial Freedom\"\" by Van Tharp.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8ffca6f177412197c30e9a59db75767", "text": "I did a historical analysis a few years back of all well-known candlestick patterns against my database of 5 years worth of 1-minute resolution data of all FTSE100 shares. There wasn't a single pattern that showed even a 1% gain with 60% reliability. Unfortunately I don't have spread data other than for a handful of days where I recorded live prices rather than minutely summaries, but my suspicion is that most of the time you wouldn't even earn back the spread on such a trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9f422439201bab41100af72d64060f8", "text": "I love technical analysis, and use candlesticks as part of my technical analysis system for trading mutual funds in my 401K. However, I would never use a candlestick chart on its own. I use combination of candlesticks, 2 different EMAs, MACD, bollinger bands, RSI and hand drawn trend lines that I constantly tweak. That's about as much data input as I can handle, but it is possible to graph it all at once and see it at a glance if you have the right trading platform. My approach is very personal, not very aggressive, and took me years to develop. But it's fairly effective - 90% + of my trades are winners. The big advantage of technical analysis is that it forces you to create repeatable rules around which you base your trading. A lot of the time I have little attention at all on what fund I am trading or why it is doing well in that particular market condition. It's basically irrelevant as the technical system tells when to buy and sell, and stops you trying to second guess whether housing, chemicals, gold or asian tigers are is doing well right now. If you don't keep to your own rules, you have only yourself to blame. This keeps you from blaming the market, which is completely out of your control. I explain many of my trades with anotated graphs at http://neurotrade.blogspot.com/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdf902963e79c6b5e308997b48edab0a", "text": "I can think of a few simple and quick techniques for timing the market over the long term, and they can be used individually or in combination with each other. There are also some additional techniques to give early warning of possible turns in the market. The first is using a Moving Average (MA) as an indication of when to sell. Simply if the price closes below the MA it is time to sell. Obviously if the period you are looking at is long term you would probably use a weekly or even monthly chart and use a relatively large period MA such as a 50 week or 100 week moving average. The longer the period the more the MA will lag behind the price but the less false signals and whipsawing there will be. As we are looking long term (5 years +) I would use a weekly chart with a 100 week Exponential MA. The second technique is using a Rate Of Change (ROC) Indicator, which is a momentum indicator. The idea for timing the markets in the long term is to buy when the indicator crosses above the zero line and sell when it crosses below the zero line. For long term investing I would use a 13 week EMA of the 52 week ROC (the EMA smooths out the ROC indicator to reduce the chance of false signals). The beauty of these two indicators is they can be used effectively together. Below are examples of using these two indicators in combination on the S&P500 and the Australian S&P ASX200 over the past 20 years. S&P500 1995 to 2015 ASX200 1995 to 2015 If I was investing in an ETF tracking one of these indexes I would use these two indicators together by using the MA as an early warning system and maybe tighten any stop losses I have so that if the market takes a sudden turn downward the majority of my profits would be protected. I would then use the ROC Indicator to sell out completely out of the ETF when it crosses below zero or to buy back in when the ROC moves back above zero. As you can see in both charts the two indicators would have kept you out of the market during the worst of the downfalls in 2000 and 2008 for the S&P500 and 2008 for the ASX200. If there is a false signal that gets you out of the market you can quite easily get back in if the indicator goes back above zero. Using these indicators you would have gotten into the market 3 times and out of it twice for the S&P500 over a 20 year period. For the ASX200 you would have gone in 6 times and out 5 times, also over a 20 year period. For individual shares I would use the ROC indicator over the main index the shares belong to, to give an indication of when to be buying individual stocks and when to tighten stop losses and stay on the sidelines. My philosophy is to buy rising stocks in a rising market and sell falling stocks in a falling market. So if the ROC indicator is above zero I would be looking to buy fundamentally healthy stocks that are up-trending and place a 20% trailing stop loss on them. If I get stopped out of one stock then I would look to replace it with another as long as the ROC is still above zero. If the ROC indicator crosses below zero I would tighten my trailing stop losses to 5% and not buy any new stocks once I get stopped out. Some additional indicators I would use for individual stock would be trend lines and using the MACD as a momentum indicator. These two indicators can give you further early warning that the stock may be about to reverse from its current trend, so you can tighten your stop loss even if the ROC is still above zero. Here is an example chart to explain: GEM.AX 3 Year Weekly Chart Basically if the price closes below the trend line it may be time to close out the position or at the very least tighten up your trailing stop loss to 5%. If the price breaks below an established uptrend line it may well be the end of the uptrend. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. As GEM has broken below the uptrend line and has maid a lower low, all that is needed to confirm the uptrend is over is a lower high. But months before the price broke below the uptrend line, the MACD momentum indicator was showing bearish divergence between it and the price. In early September 2014 the price made a higher high but the MACD made a lower high. This is called a bearish divergence and is an early warning signal that the momentum in the uptrend is weakening and the trend could be reversing soon. Notice I said could and not would. In this situation I would reduce my trailing stop to 10% and keep a watchful eye on this stock over the coming months. There are many other indicators that could be used as signals or as early warnings, but I thought I would talk about some of my favourites and ones I use on a daily and weekly basis. If you were to employ any of these techniques into your investing or trading it may take a little while to learn about them properly and to implement them into your trading plan, but once you have done that you would only need to spend 1 to 2 hours per week managing your portfolio if trading long-term or about 1 hour per nigh (after market close) if trading more medium term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26e2f4c44f9e3dce168e4b1e42b4a913", "text": "Nothing is guaranteed - candlesticks are not crystal balls nor is any part of technical analysis. Candlestick patterns used correctly and in combination with other western technical indicators can increase the probability of a trade going into the derived direction, but they are not a guarantee - which is why you should always use stop losses with your candlestick or any trading. In saying that, another candlestick pattern that can provide high probability trades is the Doji, or a combination of Dojis in a row at a market extreme. Note that both Engulfing patterns and Dojis work best at price extremes (highs and lows) and in combination with other technical indicators such as an overbought momentum indicator at a market high, or an oversold momentum indicator at a market low. EDIT - An Example Here is a sample trade I placed on the 17th October and am currently 15.6% in profit on. See the chart below as it shows taking the trade on the open of the following day after a bullish engulfing pattern appeared at the bottom of a downtrend on the 16th in combination with the Slow Stochastic crossing over in the oversold region (below 20%). I would consider this a high probability trade and have placed an initial stop loss at 10% below my open price in case the trade went against me. As the price moved up I moved the 10% stop loss up as a trailing stop loss. My profit target is set at 25% or $4.00.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0abcd449cae2ed7664022837ddd01ced", "text": "\"Google's RSI is using a 10 period on 2 minute bars - i.e. it is based upon the last 20 minutes of data. Yahoo's RSI is using a 14 period lookback on an undetermined timeframe (you could maybe mouse-over and see what incremental part of the chart is giving) and given the \"\"choppier\"\" price chart, probably 30 second or 1 minute bars. Given the difference in both the period specified and the periodicity of the charts - you should expect different results.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dfed756f982e10aeba6622ffc054226", "text": "Is that indicator can only be used for short-term trade? First of all, indicator works perfect during trends and oscillator works perfectly in the range market(or flat market). So, indicator can be used for long term, as well as short term. I mean if it is a range market, using this or any other indicator will not help much, so it you should consider market direction first. If it can be used to long-term trade, is there something I need to change from the parameters used? like, only using SMMA(5,8,13)? The parameters are there to change them. Of course you can change them based on your trading style. Considering my statement above does not mean that trading is very easy. I never use indicators alone to make trading decisions. It is always good to use oscillator to filter out bad trading signals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1704a42ebc5a256b5f09de11d61a567a", "text": "\"Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a \"\"bad investment\"\" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c9d63625c63055a82cddb328e35a638d	What factors make someone buy or sell a stock?	[ { "docid": "67678b24e00d599afb2ad4f0fb52c905", "text": "\"First, note that a share represents a % of ownership of a company. In addition to the right to vote in the management of the company [by voting on the board of directors, who hires the CEO, who hires the VPs, etc...], this gives you the right to all future value of the company after paying off expenses and debts. You will receive this money in two forms: dividends approved by the board of directors, and the final liquidation value if the company closes shop. There are many ways to attempt to determine the value of a company, but the basic theory is that the company is worth a cashflow stream equal to all future dividends + the liquidation value. So, the market's \"\"goal\"\" is to attempt to determine what that future cash flow stream is, and what the risk related to it is. Depending on who you talk to, a typical stock market has some degree of 'market efficiency'. Market efficiency is basically a comment about how quickly the market reacts to news. In a regulated marketplace with a high degree of information available, market efficiency should be quite high. This basically means that stock markets in developed countries have enough traders and enough news reporting that as soon as something public is known about a company, there are many, many people who take that information and attempt to predict the impact on future earnings of the company. For example, if Starbucks announces earnings that were 10% less than estimated previously, the market will quickly respond with people buying Starbucks shares lowering their price on the assumption that the total value of the Starbucks company has decreased. Most of this trading analysis is done by institutional investors. It isn't simply office workers selling shares on their break in the coffee room, it's mostly people in the finance industry who specialize in various areas for their firms, and work to quickly react to news like this. Is the market perfectly efficient? No. The psychology of trading [ie: people panicking, or reacting based on emotion instead of logic], as well as any inadequacy of information, means that not all news is perfectly acted upon immediately. However, my personal opinion is that for large markets, the market is roughly efficient enough that you can assume that you won't be able to read the newspaper and analyze stock news in a way better than the institutional investors. If a market is generally efficient, then it would be very difficult for a group of people to manipulate it, because someone else would quickly take advantage of that. For example, you suggest that some people might collectively 'short AMZN' [a company worth half a trillion dollars, so your nefarious group would need to have $5 Billion of capital just to trade 1% of the company]. If someone did that, the rest of the market would happily buy up AMZN at reduced prices, and the people who shorted it would be left holding the bag. However, when you deal with smaller items, some more likely market manipulation can occur. For example, when trading penny stocks, there are people who attempt to manipulate the stock price and then make a profitable trade afterwards. This takes advantage of the low amount of information available for tiny companies, as well as the limited number of institutional investors who pay attention to them. Effectively it attempts to manipulate people who are not very sophisticated. So, some manipulation can occur in markets with limited information, but for the most part prices are determined by the 'market consensus' on what the future profits of a company will be. Additional example of what a share really is: Imagine your neighbor has a treasure chest on his driveway: He gathers the neighborhood together, and asks if anyone wants to buy a % of the value he will get from opening the treasure chest. Perhaps it's a glass treasure chest, and you can mostly see inside it. You see that it is mostly gold and silver, and you weigh the chest and can see that it's about 100 lbs all together. So in your head, you take the price of gold and silver, and estimate how much gold is in the chest, and how much silver is there. You estimate that the chest has roughly $1,000,000 of value inside. So, you offer to buy 10% of the chest, for $90k [you don't want to pay exactly 10% of the value of the company, because you aren't completely sure of the value; you are taking on some risk, so you want to be compensated for that risk]. Now assume all your neighbors value the chest themselves, and they come up with the same approximate value as you. So your neighbor hands out little certificates to 10 of you, and they each say \"\"this person has a right to 10% of the value of the treasure chest\"\". He then calls for a vote from all the new 'shareholders', and asks if you want to get the money back as soon as he sells the chest, or if you want him to buy a ship and try and find more chests. It seems you're all impatient, because you all vote to fully pay out the money as soon as he has it. So your neighbor collects his $900k [$90k for each 10% share, * 10], and heads to the goldsmith to sell the chest. But before he gets there, a news report comes out that the price of gold has gone up. Because you own a share of something based on the price of gold, you know that your 10% treasure chest investment has increased in value. You now believe that your 10% is worth $105k. You put a flyer up around the neighborhood, saying you will sell your share for $105k. Because other flyers are going up to sell for about $103-$106k, it seems your valuation was mostly consistent with the market. Eventually someone driving by sees your flyer, and offers you $104k for your shares. You agree, because you want the cash now and don't want to wait for the treasure chest to be sold. Now, when the treasure chest gets sold to the goldsmith, assume it sells for $1,060,000 [turns out you underestimated the value of the company]. The person who bought your 10% share will get $106k [he gained $2k]. Your neighbor who found the chest got $900k [because he sold the shares earlier, when the value of the chest was less clear], and you got $104k, which for you was a gain of $14k above what you paid for it. This is basically what happens with shares. Buy owning a portion of the company, you have a right to get a dividend of future earnings. But, it could take a long time for you to get those earnings, and they might not be exactly what you expect. So some people do buy and sell shares to try and earn money, but the reason they are able to do that is because the shares are inherently worth something - they are worth a small % of the company and its earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4c6716db876ed27f5199f7148298af8", "text": "\"Stock price is determined by the buyers and sellers, correct? Correct! \"\"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it\"\"-Publius Syrus What causes people to buy or sell? Is it news? earnings? stock analysis and techniques? All of these things influence investors' perception of how much a stock is worth. If AMZN makes a lot of money one quarter, then the price might go up. But maybe public perception of AMZN changes because of a large scandal. This could cause the share price to decline even with the favorable earnings report. Why do these 'good' or 'bad' news make people want to buy/sell a stock? People invest to make money. If it looks like a company is going to take a turn for the worst, people will sell. If it looks like the company has a bright, cash-laden future in front of them, people will buy. News is one of the many factors people use to determine how well a company will do. Theoretically could a bunch of people short AMZN and drive down the price regardless of how well it is doing? Say investors wanted to boycott AMZN in order to drive down the cost and get some cheap shares. This is pretty silly, but say for the sake of the argument that everyone who owned AMZN decided to sell their shares and no other investor was willing to buy the shares for less than $0.01, then AMZN shares would be \"\"worth\"\" $0.01 in that aspect. That is extremely unlikely to happen, though, for two reasons:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7be95f329bacb0dd5a51bd39320063b", "text": "why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ca40f9b445156190dec0799d8d34b5f7", "text": "\"I always liked the answer that in the short term, the market is a voting machine and in the long term the market is a weighing machine. People can \"\"vote\"\" a stock up or down in the short term. In the long term, typically, the intrinsic value of a company will be reflected in the price. It's a rule of thumb, not perfect, but it is generally true. I think it's from an old investing book that talks about \"\"Mr. Market\"\". Maybe it's from one of Warren Buffet's annual letters. Anyone know? :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "336984e37cb89b35c1815137305e8800", "text": "Prices can go up or down for a variety of reasons. If interest rates decline typically every stock goes up, and vice versa. Ultimately, there are two main value-related factors to a price of a stock: the dividends the company may issue or the payoff in the event the company is bought by someone else. Any dividend paid will give concrete value to a stock. For example, imagine a company has shares selling at $1.00 and they announce that they will pay a dividend at the end of the year of $1.00 per share. If their claim is believable then the stock is practically FREE at $1.00 a share, so in all likelihood the stock will go up a lot, just on the basis of the dividend alone. If a company is bought by another, they need to buy at least a majority of the shares, and in some cases all the shares. Since the price the buyer will be willing to pay for the company is related to its potential future income for the buyer, the more profitable the company is, the more a buyer will be willing to pay and hence the greater the value of the stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "424a44f66cdf909c40a09b33e5f9b38a", "text": "\"I used to be in research department for big financial data company. Tell your son that there are three factors: Most people think that net sales vs. expectations is the only factor. It might not even be the biggest. It is simply how much money did company make. Note that this is not how many units they sold. For most companies they will have adjustable pricing and incentives in their sector. For example let's talk about a new company selling Superman Kid's Bikes (with a cape the flips out when you hit a certain speed). The company has it in Walmart at one price, Target at another, Toys R' Us even cheaper, Amazon (making more profit there), and other stores. They are doing \"\"OK\"\" come Dec. 1 but holiday season being half way over they slash price from $100 to $80 because they have tons of inventory. What are looking at her is how much money did they make. Note that marketing, advertising, legal (setting up contracts) are a bit fixed. In my opinion consumer sentiment is the #1 thing for a company that sells a product. Incredible consumer sentiment is like millions of dollars in free advertising. So let's say Dec. 15th comes and the reviews on the Superman Bike are through the roof. Every loves it, no major defects. Company can't even supply the retailers now because after slashing the price it became a great buy. A common investor might be pissed that some dummy at the company slashed the prices so they could have had a much better profit margin, but at the same time it wouldn't have led to an onslaught of sales and consumer sentiment. And the last area is product sell-off. This doesn't apply to all product but most. Some products will only have a technology shelf life, some will actually go bad or out of fashion, and even selling Superman bikes you want to get those to the store because the product is so big. So ignoring making a profit can a company sell off inventory at or around cost. If they can't, even if they made a profit, their risk factor goes up. So let's get back to Superman Bikes. This is the only product company ABC has. They had expected holiday sales at 100 million and profits at 40 million. They ended up at 120 million and 44 million. Let's say their stock was $20 before any information was gathered by the public (remember for most companies info is gathered daily now so this is rather simplistic). So you might expect that the stock would rise to maybe $24 - to which if you were an investor is a great profit. However this company has a cult consumer following who are waiting for the Captain America Bike (shoots discs) and the Hulk Bike (turns green when you go fast). Let's say consumer sentiment and projections base off that put next holiday sales at $250 million. So maybe the company is worth $40 a share now. But consumer sentiment is funny because not only does it effect future projections but it also effects perceived present value of company - which may have the stock trading at $60 a share (think earnings and companies like Google). Having a company people feel proud owning or thinking is cool is also a indicator or share worth. I gave you a really good example of a very successful company selling Superman Bikes... There are just as many companies that have the opposite happening. Imagine missing sales goals by a few million with bad consumer feedback and all of a sudden your company goes from $20 to $5 a share.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb34d6f5694c9ab4813a79be7e88e943", "text": "\"Not sure I fully understand your question but my take on it is this: There a lot of people out there that admire companies and own the stock just because they like the company. For example, I know some kids who own Disney stock. They only have a share or two but they keep it because they want to say \"\"I own a part of Disney.\"\" Realistically speaking, if they hold or sell the stock it is so minuscule to have any realizable affect on the overall value of the stock which does not really make the company look better from an investor perspective. However, if a company has people that just want to own the stock just like your uncle are indeed \"\"better\"\" because they must have provided a product or service that is valued intrinsically.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cdff41bc8fe9de657c5969883088d44", "text": "\"Buying pressure is when there are more buy orders than sell orders outstanding. Just because someone wants to buy a stock doesn't mean there's a seller ready to fill that order. When there's buying pressure, stock prices rise. When there's selling pressure, stock prices fall. There can be high volume where buying and selling are roughly equal, in which case share prices wouldn't move much. The market makers who actually fill buy and sell orders for stock will raise share prices in the face of buying pressure and lower them in the face of selling pressure. That's because they get to keep the margin between what they bought shares from a seller for and what they can sell them to a new buyer for. Here's an explanation from InvestorPlace.com about \"\"buying pressure\"\": Buying pressure can basically be defined as increasingly higher demand for a particular stock's shares. This demand for shares exceeds the supply and causes the price to rise. ... The strength or weakness of a stock determines how much buying or selling interest will be required to break support and resistance areas. I hope this helps!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f34458f083eae68c8949828e68620000", "text": "A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab30267ef9bb5db72220573b9c1bb73f", "text": "\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e40085d2a0da4b760a5a1930c4a79386", "text": "If the price has gone up from what it was when the person bought, he may sell to collect his profit and spend the money. If someone intends to keep his money in the market, the trick is that you don't know when the price of a given stock will peak. If you could tell the future, sure, you'd buy when the stock was at its lowest point, just before it started up, and then sell at the highest point, just before it started down. But no one knows for sure what those points are. If a stockholder really KNOWS that demand is increasing and the price WILL go up, sure, it would be foolish to sell. But you can never KNOW that. (Or if you have some way that you do know that, please call me and share your knowledge.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "958bc50fb642ea1196eccc7d99737758", "text": "Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a7cb335aa2cfc013f8504d25232875e", "text": "\"It is not clear when you mean \"\"company's directors\"\" are they also majority owners. There are several reasons for Buy; Similarly there are enough reasons for sell; Quite often the exact reasons for Buy or Sell are not known and hence blindly following that strategy is not useful. It can be one of the inputs to make a decision.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71752390575b4a5bc86085914073912b", "text": "\"I think the question can be answered by realizing that whoever is buying the stock is buying it from someone who can do the same mathematics. Ask your son to imagine that everyone planned to buy the stock exactly one week before Christmas. Would the price still be cheap? The problem is that if everyone knows the price will go up, the people who own it already won't want to sell. If you're buying something from someone who doesn't really want to sell it, you have to pay more to get it. So the price goes up a week before Christmas, rather than after Christmas. But of course everyone else can figure this out too. So they are going to buy 2 weeks before, but that means the price goes up 2 weeks before rather than 1 week. You play this game over and over, and eventually the expected increased Christmas sales are \"\"priced in\"\". But of course there is a chance people are setting the price based on a mistaken belief. So the winner isn't the person who buys just before the others, but rather the one who can more accurately predict what the sales will be (this is why insider trading is so tempting even if it's illegal). The price you see right now represents what people anticipate the price will be in the future, what dividends are expected in the future, how much risk people think there is, and how that compares with other available investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "953e4dd67e76f43c32c1b58f23edb165", "text": "Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "392d53e0c27b44b922d2b8d50513eb4d", "text": "\"You can think of the situation as a kind of Nash equilibrium. If \"\"the market\"\" values stock based on the value of the company, then from an individual point of view it makes sense to value stock the same way. As an illustration, imagine that stock prices were associated with the amount of precipitation at the company's location, rather than the assets of the company. In this imaginary stock market, it would not benefit you to buy and sell stock according to the company's value. Instead, you would profit most from buying and selling according to the weather, like everyone else. (Whether this system — or the current one — would be stable in the long-term is another matter entirely.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "025adc914ef3b24720ad4fd4af995e8d", "text": "\"I did once read a book titled \"\"How I made a million dollars on the stock market\"\". It sounded realistic enough to be a true story. The author made it clear on the first page that (a) this was due to some exceptional circumstances, (b) that he would never again be able to pull off something like this, and (c) you would never be able to pull of something like this, except with extreme luck. (The situation was small company A with a majority shareholder, other small company B tries to gain control by buying all the shares, the majority shareholder of A trying to prevent this by buying as many shares as possible, share price shooting up ridiculously, \"\"smart\"\" traders selling uncovered shorts to benefit when the price inevitably drops, the book author buying $5,000 worth of shares because they were going up, and then one enormous short squeeze catching out the traders. And he claimed having sold his shares for over a million - before the price dropped back to normal). Clearly not a matter of \"\"playing your cards right\"\", but of having an enormous amount of luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fcc27c589ad5707da32927f41278dd0e", "text": "\"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e78d8946e188ca6502430581eae606dd	Can someone explain how government bonds work?	[ { "docid": "f0963b264ba8f2c79655d1e78797cb36", "text": "\"The short of it is that bonds are valued based on a fundamental concept of finance called the \"\"time value of money\"\". Stated simply, $100 one year from now is not the same as $100 now. If you had $100 now, you could use it to make more money and have more than $100 in a year. Conversely, if you didn't invest it, the $100 would not buy as much in a year as it would now, and so it would lose real value. Therefore, for these two benefits to be worth the same, the money received a year from now must be more than $100, in the amount of what you could make with $100 if you had it now, or at least the rate of inflation. Or, the amount received now could be less than the amount recieved a year from now, such that if you invested this lesser amount you'd expect to have $100 in a year. The simplest bonds simply pay their face value at maturity, and are sold for less than their face value, the difference being the cost to borrow the cash; \"\"interest\"\". These are called \"\"zero-coupon bonds\"\" and they're around, if maybe uncommon. The price people will pay for these bonds is their \"\"present value\"\", and the difference between the present value and face value determines a \"\"yield\"\"; a rate of return, similar to the interest rate on a CD. Now, zero-coupon bonds are uncommon because they cost a lot. If I buy a zero-coupon bond, I'm basically tying up my money until maturity; I see nothing until the full bond is paid. As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a \"\"coupon bond\"\". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The \"\"Income Yield %\"\" from your table is also referred to as the \"\"Flat Yield\"\". It is a very crude measure, a simple function of the coupon rate, the current quote price and the face value (R/P * V). For the first bond in your list, the flat yield is (.04/114.63 * 100) = 3.4895%. This is a very simple measure that is roughly analogous to what you would expect to make on the bond if you held it for one year, collected the coupon payment, and then sold the bond for the same price; you'd earn one coupon payment at the end of that year and then recoup the principal. The actual present value calculation for a period of 1 year is PV = FV/(1+r), which rearranges to r = FV/PV - 1; plug in the values (present value 114.63, future value 118.63) and you get exactly the same result. This is crude and inaccurate because in one year, the bond will be a year closer to maturity and will return one less coupon payment; therefore at the same rate of return the present value of the remaining payout of the bond will only be $110.99 (which makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the bond will only pay out $112 if you bought it a year from now, so why would you pay $114 for it?). Another measure, not seen in the list, is the \"\"simple APY\"\". Quite simply, it is the yield that will be realized from all cash flows from the bond (all coupon payments plus the face value of the bond), as if all those cash flows happened at maturity. This is calculated using the future value formula: FV = PV (1+r/n)nt, where FV is the future value (the sum of the face value and all coupon payments to be made before maturity), PV is present value (the current purchase price), r is the annual rate (which we're solving for), n is the number of times interest accrues and/or is paid (for an annual coupon that's 1), and t is the number of years to maturity. For the first bond in the list, the simple APY is 0.2974%. This is the effective compound interest rate you would realize if you bought the bond and then took all the returns and stuffed them in a mattress until maturity. Since nobody does this with investment returns, it's not very useful, but it can be used to compare the yield on a zero-coupon bond to the yield on a coupon bond if you treated both the same way, or to compare a coupon bond to a CD or other compound-interest-bearing account that you planned to buy into and not touch for its lifetime. The Yield to Maturity, which IS seen, is the true yield percentage of the bond in time-valued terms, assuming you buy the bond now, hold it to maturity and all coupon payments are made on time and reinvested at a similar yield. This calculation is based on the simple APY, but takes into account the fact that most of the coupon payments will be made prior to maturity; the present value of these will be higher because they happen sooner. The YTM is calculated by summing the present values of all payments based on when they'll occur; so, you'll get one $4 payment a year from now, then another $4 in two years, then $4 in 3 years, and $104 at maturity. The present value of each of those payments is calculated by flipping around the future value formula: PV = FV/(1+r)t. The present value of the entire bond (its current price) is the sum of the present value of each payment: 114.63 = 4/(1+r) + 4/(1+r)2 + 4/(1+r)3 + 104/(1+r)4. You now have to solve for r, which is difficult to isolate; the easiest way to find the rate with a computer is to \"\"goal seek\"\" (intelligently guess and check). Based on the formula above, I calculated a YTM of .314% for the first bond if you bought on Sept 7, 2012 (and thus missed the upcoming coupon payment). Buying today, you'd also be entitled to about 5 weeks' worth of the coupon payment that is due on Sept 07 2012, which is close enough to the present day that the discounted value is a rounding error, putting the YTM of the bond right at .40%. This is the rate of return you'll get off of your investment if you are able to take all the returns from it, when you receive them, and reinvest them at a similar rate (similar to having a savings account at that rate, or being able to buy fractional shares of a mutual fund giving you that rate).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb", "text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7640decc4162cbf62a036df0c7c0f259", "text": "weird holdover from the bad old days when you had to do arithmetic by hand I would guess. Stocks used to trade in 1/8ths, so bonds trading in even smaller increments makes sense. Also (and I am unsure if this is still true) U.S. bonds trade on a 360 day year (or used to anyway) for the same reason... 360 divides well into months and quarters (for easier math) whereas 365 is considerably harder. Most of the world now trades in decimals and 365/365 years so I am unsure why the U.S. doesn't. Institutional inertia I would guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "457f7cbe868254966c2234c7c5f53d4b", "text": "230 government agencies by law have to buy treasury bonds with their excess cash. Those agencies hold 30% of the debt. The rest is by anyone else who purchased bonds on the open market when the treasury sold them. Are you fucking stupid? You think the government just printed 20 trillion dollars with nothing to back it? No hedge funds bought them. China, Japan, Britain, bought them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d2b73e1ee4366764534c224b142964", "text": "\"Other than the inconvienent fact that Treasury cannot sell to the Fed by law your theory is nice. You forget the step where the open market buys from the Treasury since they desire bonds to invest in, and the Fed can buy only from the open market. Secondly, the Fed does not give cash to the Treasury. The mint (a branch of the Treasury, not the Fed) prints cash. So it seems your understanding of how the money system works is quite wrong, yet since this is the Economy subreddit instead of the Economics subreddit, I expect you to get upvotes for saying what is popular even though it is laughably incorrect. You seem to not like cash that was not \"\"even existing previously\"\". All cash was not existing previously. How do you expect people to make transactions? Barter? You call them interest free loans (but above claimed they will never be paid back?), but then the Fed is making a profit on them? It seems you contradict yourself with all that handwaving. It would be interesting for you to explain how (and why) money (not cash) gets added and removed to the economy. Yay for ignorance!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac77f8c7aa0bad42c502a881f02849db", "text": "If the government defaults on its debt, the holders of the debt get hung out to dry. You'll personally still owe just what you owed before, but the risk profile for the lender just shot up through the roof if the debt they hold is government-backed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5aa09a29c3eb958e01d55785c5b28c25", "text": "no it would not. Did you read the article? corporations and funds are already paying the government to hold money short-term (negative real 2 year bond yields). or are you advocating that the government place an additional tax on people who buy government bonds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3bae8e3b801de953c6ba778740f8d5c", "text": "\"you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market. http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk. There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large. But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as \"\"currency\"\" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25cf528cb594ac69f21ac7cc0cf0ab5d", "text": "The assumption that bonds have been issued with a negative coupon is not correct, or at least is has not occurred thus far. We'll look at this future possibility in the final paragraph. For now, lets look at the current bond market. The issuance of government bonds which carry a negative gross redemption yield is the result of governments issuing bonds at an issue price which exceed the nominal/redemption price and any coupon yield receivable over the life of the bond. I can find no instances of bonds with a negative coupon, though many have tiny positive coupon yields. The short seller of a bond with a negative gross redemption yield will be liable to pay the buyer the interest amount determined by the coupon. If the short seller has borrowed the bonds in order to sell them, then the short seller will receive the interest due from the lender to offset the interest paid to the buyer. If the short seller has not borrowed the bonds, but has sold them using some sort of synthetic contract such as a Contract for Difference, then the short seller will pay the coupon without receiving any offsetting payment. I thought this was an interesting question and it will be interesting to see if, at some time in the future, governments do ever issue bonds with a negative coupon. To date, this does not appear to have happened. So what would happen if we assume that a government issues a bond with a negative coupon. The buyer of the bond would be required to pay the equivalent yield to the government according to the bond contract specification. If an investor sells short such a bond, they would then become entitled to receive the interest from the buyer. If they have borrowed the bonds in order to sell them short, then they would pay any interest received back to the lender - this chain should eventually end with the ultimate owner/lender paying the government their dues. If they have sold short using a synthetic contract, then presumably they would keep the interest from themselves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04", "text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13ede27f0c9b40ca18f3c17d00ab7071", "text": "Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba635a0e2132b69b629c4d6de7a2b27b", "text": "Bond prices move inversely to their yields. So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall. Since bond prices are falling, yields go up. (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same. It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7678d76e4983abfebdf8c18da0f8280e", "text": "The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d8b964c197b4e88844b037810b8339df", "text": "There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work: * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value. * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds. * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b4ac6d21b3e809e741841ba81cd1cf1", "text": "This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default. How? By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out. Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6f22cd2659dc30cc6bfd0b4264018d8", "text": "Tbonds are on nobody's books when they are bought back. Feds or Treasury department credits your account plus any interests when you sell the bonds back to them. The Tbonds are then destroyed. The govt is forever solvent when paying Tbonds. They just click a few buttons and bam!! A check is written to you or your checking account is increased for turning in the matured bonds.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9937348b7dd1bfbc3e0ae4fac2eca1e3	How should I handle student loans when leaving University and trying to buy a house?	[ { "docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a", "text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e634ebc5b8d5a558812184dc3afaf7cd", "text": "One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school. Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "348332ebd12750fb19b0752caded06c2", "text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15f8ac47cd161d2a2b55ed104b4c581f", "text": "The biggest red flag is the fact that your parents may lose their house. There are multiple parts of the decision. The red flag comes in because you are stretching your finances to the max to afford the house you are interested in. Buying down the interest rate makes some sense depending on how long you plan on staying, but not a a way to afford house X. Of course a bigger down payment will also influence the size of the house. You are also buying something in case your parents need a place to live. What happens if that never occurs? You now have something bigger than you need. You are mixing investments and housing. There is no guarantee that you will even break-even on the house as a investment. It can take several years to make back the closing costs involved in buying and selling a house, based solely on stable price and your monthly payments. If the price drops you might never make the money back. You might be better off renting what you need now or waiting until the current house is lost and then renting what you need then.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3efd6b04f4c411da91108e1ba6a83ead", "text": "\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ab7a895569eedf19577c89144cf4853", "text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8394b41dc5e16d17c616139c687e014c", "text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c3d4c6665da2f9ba58598c819e7094d", "text": "I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbb1a5aaa7bc8c7f62db10fa77815473", "text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c59b0cebec63a91223960ef08c299029", "text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8700cf158da8042aaddd73f9043e4aef", "text": "\"This election only applies to payments that you make within 120 days of your having received loan money. These wouldn't be required payments, which is why they are called \"\"early\"\" payments. For example, let's say that you've just received $10,000 from your lender for a new loan. One month later, you pay $500 back. This election decides how that $500 will be applied. The first choice, \"\"Apply as Refund,\"\" means that you are essentially returning some of the money that you initially borrowed. It's like you never borrowed it. Instead of a $10,000 loan, it is now a $9,500 loan. The accrued interest will be recalculated for the new loan amount. The second choice, \"\"Apply as Payment,\"\" means that your payment will first be applied to any interest that has accrued, then applied to the principal. While you are in school, you don't need to make payments on student loans. However, interest is accruing from the day you get the money. This interest is simple interest, which means that the interest is only based on the loan principal; the interest is not compounding, and you are not paying interest on interest. After you leave school and your grace period expires, you enter repayment, and you have to start making payments. At this point, all the interest that has accrued from the time you first received the money until now is capitalized. This means that the interest is added to your loan principal, and interest will now be calculated on this new, larger amount. To avoid this, you can pay the interest as you go before it is capitalized, which will save you from having to pay even more interest later on. As to which method is better, just as they told you right on the form, the \"\"Apply as Refund\"\" method will save you the most money in the long run. However, as I said at the beginning, this election only applies if you make a payment within 120 days from receiving loan funds. Since you are already out of school and in repayment, I don't think it matters at all what you select here. For any students reading this and thinking about loans, I want to issue a warning. Student loans can ruin people later in life. If you truly feel that taking out a loan is the only way you'll be able to get the education you need, minimize these as much as possible. Borrow as little as possible, pay as much as you can as early as you can, and plan on knocking these out ASAP. Great Lakes has a few pages that discuss these topics:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5bc3cebe3c03ba3cac29b797150cbcd6", "text": "\"I think there are two questions here: (a) Is it better to continue living with your parents while you save up for a bigger down payment on a house, or to move out as soon as possible? (b) Is it better to pay off a student loan and make a smaller down payment on the house, or to keep paying on the student loan and use the cash for a larger down payment on the house? Regarding (a), this is mostly a personal priorities question. You don't say if you're paying your parents anything, but even if you are, it's likely a lot less than the cost of your buying your own home. It is almost certainly ECONOMICALLY better to stay with your parents. But do you like living with your parents, and do they like having you around? Or are they pushing you to move out? Are you fighting with them regularly? Do you just like the idea of being more independent? If you'd prefer to have your own place, how important is it to you? Is it worth the additional cost? These are questions only you can answer. Regarding (b), you need to compare the cost of the student loan and the mortgage loan. Start with the interest rates of each. For the mortgage loan, if your down payment is below a certain threshold -- 20% last time I bought a house -- you have to pay for the lender's mortgage insurance, so add that in if applicable. If you are paying \"\"points\"\" to get a reduced interest rate, factor that in too. Then whichever is more expensive, that's the one that you want to make smaller. If one or both are variable rate loans (well, you say the student loan is fixed), than you have to guess what the rates might be in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4dba527ceeb1a824675dbc76b6a6cc12", "text": "\"Let me run some simplistic numbers, ignoring inflation. You have the opportunity to borrow up to 51K. What matters (and varies) is your postgraduation salary. Case 1 - you make 22K after graduation. You pay back 90 a year for 30 years, paying off at most 2700 of the loan. In this case, whether you borrow 2,800 or 28,000 makes no difference to the paying-off. You would do best to borrow as much as you possibly can, treating it as a grant. Case 2 - you make 100K after graduation. You pay back over 7K a year. If you borrowed the full 51, after 7 or 8 years it would be paid off (yeah, yeah, inflation, interest, but maybe that might make it 9 years.) In this case, the more you borrow the more you have to pay back, but you can easily pay it back, so you don't care. Invest your sponsorships and savings into something long term since you know you won't be needing to draw on them. Case 3 - you make 30K after graduation. Here, the payments you have to make actually impact how much disposable income you have. You pay back 810 a year, and over 30 years that's about 25K of principal. It will be less if you account for some (even most) of the payment going to interest, not principal. Anything you borrow above 25K (or the lower, more accurate amount) is \"\"free\"\". If you borrow substantially less than that (by using your sponsorship, savings, and summer job) you may be able to stop paying sooner than 30 years. But even if you borrow only 12K (or half the more accurate number), it will still be 15 years of payments. Running slightly more realistic versions of these calculations where your salary goes up, and you take interest into account, I think you will discover, for each possible salary path, a number that represents how much of your loan is really loan: everything above that is actually a grant you do not pay back. The less you are likely to make, the more of it is really grant. On top of that, it seems to me that no matter the loan/grant ratio, \"\"borrow as much as you can from this rather bizarre source\"\" appears to be the correct answer. In the cases where it's all loan, you have a lot of income and don't care much about this loan payment. Borrowing the whole 51K lets you invest all the money you get while you're a student, and you can use the returns on those investments to make the loan payments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33d099c8da7f15157ff66e6ab94e8a96", "text": "My in-laws are pressuring me to buy a home. I don't really have much financial experience. In fact, I'm a nightmare with finances. I almost have my student loans payed off from school. My in-laws and husband are great with finances and with real-estate. My husband has a good job and $200k in savings. I have a good job too, and still have some debt from school. (approx $60k left of 180k). They say the house will be available in Jan or February for purchase, and that we should really try to buy it (prob $2-3 mil). My guess is they want to make it available to us off the market (which is a huge benefit in this area, there are really no houses available lately) . The problem is: I am uncomfortable because I don't have all of my loans payed off, I could divert money away from paying off the loans in order to save for a larger downpayment. I just got a bonus of $35k (after taxes) I don't think I'll have all of my loans payed off by January. Should I save my money for the downpayment or focus on my loans, should I go for the house? I don't know how to weigh these options against each other with such little experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51866e5ddfe886708561f21f4af9113d", "text": "Tl;dr by anecdata I paid for my master's degree from investments/savings with a HELOC backstop It appears you don't have the 62k cash needed for tuition and living expenses so your decision is between financing a degree by selling your investments or a loan. Ultimately this comes down to the yes/no sell decision on the investments. Some things to consider:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bcc0c9036c690555368b96512ef7ed8", "text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "34bde35f3d87d48efcb701b18a66256f", "text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
93c1c71463658ae5fe850ae65ad86263	Would open source credit score formulas be feasible?	[ { "docid": "bf0dd5767867e5eaa5e7a011d127afa5", "text": "Has this already occurred, if not: why? What are the road blocks? I think it's just that the barriers to entry are rather high. Lenders would potentially be interested in a new score if it demonstrably saved them money (by more effectively weeding out risky borrowers), but because the FICO score already exists and they already know how to use it, there are costs and risks in making the transition, so lenders are unlikely to switch without solid evidence. But to get solid evidence, you would need to test out the new score and see how well it correlated with loan default and so forth. So there is a catch-22: no one will use the score until they know it works, but you can't know whether it works until people start using it. The existence of non-FICO credit scores (like VantageScore) shows that it is possible for alternatives to crop up. The question is just whether they have enough concrete advantages to overcome the track record and name recognition of FICO. Only time will tell. As for why an alternative score wouldn't be open source, you could ask the same about almost anything. Creating a measurably better score would likely take lots of time and money (to gather and analyze data both on characteristics of borrowers and on their record of debt payment). If someone is able to do that, they would probably rather do it secretly and then milk it for billions by selling the results of the secret for a long time without selling the secret itself, as FICO has done.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f6e2d2808ff5c87c89a04e3b65cc2aa", "text": "\"The major bureaus use the Fair Isaac scoring model, for the most part. Here's an excerpt from a web site (Versions of the FICO scoring model) to explain: One of the first things a newcomer to this board learns is the difference between FICO and FAKO scores. FAKO refers to the non-FICO scores offered by various companies. FAKO scores have little value since few of them are used by lenders and they do not match closely to FICO scores. But even when you stick with FICO scores, confusion can ensue because FICO scores have many different editions, versions, and variations. On a single day, a consumer could theoretically have dozens of different FICO scores, depending on which version and credit agency is used to produce the score. This post provides a summary of the various FICO versions. Please offer any corrections or updates, and they will be edited in. The FICO scoring model with its familiar range of 300 to 850 was first introduced in 1989. Since then, FICO has released five major revisions: 1995, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2014. Each \"\"edition\"\" uses a different formula and produces a different score. When a new FICO edition is released, many lenders continue using an older version for years before \"\"upgrading.\"\" The 1995 revision is no longer in common use, but later editions are still used by lenders. Most FICO editions are commonly known by the year of introduction: FICO 98, FICO 04, and FICO 08 (although FICO now calls it FICO Score 8, without the zero). The most recent edition is FICO Score 9 introduced in 2014. As of 2014, FICO Score 8 is the most commonly used. However, most mortgage lenders use FICO 04 for Equifax and Transunion, and FICO 98 for Experian. In addition to the \"\"classic\"\" version, FICO offers \"\"Industry Option\"\" versions customized for auto loans, credit cards, installment loans, personal finance loans, and insurance. These have a score range of 250 to 900, so the scores are not fully comparable with \"\"classic\"\" versions. As of 2015, Auto and Bankcard scores are available from myFICO as described here. Citibank provides the Equifax FICO 8 Bankcard score free each month to credit cards holders. Each credit agency (Transunion, Equifax, and Experian) uses a customized version of each FICO edition. As a result, a consumer's FICO scores from each agency may differ even when all credit information is identical among the agencies. Because there are many FICO versions, when a score is received, it's helpful to know which version it is. If a lender provides a credit score, ask for details such as which credit agency was used, which FICO edition was used, and whether the score is an Industry Option version. The lender may not always be willing or able to provide the answers, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Transunion Official name: FICO Risk Score Classic 98 Common name: TU-98 Available directly to consumers: No Real-world score range: 336 to 843 (as shown on page 16 of this Transunion document) Equifax Official name: Equifax FICO Score 4 (also known as Equifax Beacon 96) Common name: EQ-98 This version appears to be seldom used, but a poster reported it used on a mortgage application in 2014. Available directly to consumers: No Experian Official name: Experian FICO Score 2 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v2) Common name: EX-98 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO when buying a product that includes all 19 available scores (as described here). Some credit unions such as PSECU provide it free each month to members. Real-world score range: 320 to 844 (as shown on this Experian document) Most mortgage lenders use FICO 04 for Equifax and Transunion, and FICO 98 for Experian. All three scores will normally be pulled and the middle score (not the average) will be used by the lender. Transunion Official name: Transunion FICO Score 4 (also known as Transunion FICO Risk Score Classic 04) Common name: TU-04 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Real-world score range: 309 to 839 (as shown on page 16 of this Transunion document) Equifax Official name: Equifax FICO Score 5 (also known as Equifax Beacon 5.0) Common name: EQ-04 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Also available from Equifax when buying FICO score (as a one-time purchase with the \"\"Score Power\"\" product available here, or as part of credit monitoring available here). Some credit unions such as DCU provide it free each month to members. Real-world score range: 334 to 818 Experian Official name: Experian FICO Score 3 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v3) Common name: EX-04 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO when buying a product that includes all 19 available scores (as described here). Real-world score range: 325 to 850 (as shown on this Experian document) Transunion Official name: Transunion FICO Score 8 (also known as Transunion FICO 8 Risk Score or FICO Risk Score Classic 08) Common name: TU-08 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Some credit card issuers such as Discover, Barclays, and Walmart provides it free each month. Real-world score range: 341 to 850 (as shown on page 15 of this Transunion document) Equifax Official name: Equifax FICO Score 8 (also known as Equifax Beacon 09) Common name: EQ-08 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Real-world score range: 300 to 850 Experian Official name: Experian FICO Score 8 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v8) Common name: EX-08 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Real-world score range: 316 to 850 (as shown on this Experian document) How FICO Score 8 differs from previous versions is explained here. In May 2014, a poster named android01 received 850 scores from all three credit agencies, as described in this post. In June 2014, a poster named fused received 850 scores from all three credit agencies, as described in this post. This 2011 press release describes a study of FICO Score 8 scores. From a sample of 250,000 credit reports, it found 0.02% had a score of 850, or about 1 out of every 5000 persons. In 2014, FICO announced a new version called FICO Score 9. More info here. As of February 2016, the score is now available directly to consumers, as described here. This New York Times article says FICO 9 includes two important changes: unpaid debts that result in collection actions will no longer have a negative effect on a score if the debt has been paid. unpaid medical debts will have less negative effect on scores. In 2001, FICO released a new scoring model called NextGen. It is claimed to be an improvement over \"\"classic\"\" FICO models because it tracks more factors. But it has failed to catch on with lenders because its score range of 150 to 950 is incompatible with the familiar 300 to 850 range, requiring lenders to recalculate cutoff scores and revise many rules and policies. Only a small percentage of lenders reportedly use NextGen. Transunion Official name: Precision Available directly to consumers: No Equifax Official name: Pinnacle Available directly to consumers: In 2014, Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) began to provide this score free to its credit card holders, as discussed in this post. Experian Official name: FICO Advanced Risk Score Available directly to consumers: No I included all of this to make the point that there are many variations of the scoring models, and all of them are customized to one degree or another by each of the major bureaus as a means of giving their models more credibility, as far as they're concerned. To your question about coming up with a \"\"fair\"\" scoring model, can you propose what makes current scoring models unfair? I think it's a safe assumption to make that the financial community has already had a substantial amount of input into how the current scoring models work. To think otherwise implies that the credit bureaus are just kinda \"\"winging it\"\" with whatever they think is best. Their models are designed to give their client creditors the best scoring model possible based on what those creditors have stated is important to them. There isn't a unified single scoring model out there, and the bureaus definitely won't share the details of their modifications. You can always come up with your own custom model, but how it compares to what's widely used, that's anyone's guess. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1527d960ca0ae909169234ac934632c1", "text": "The credit scale is deceptive, it goes: AAA, AA, A, BBB, BBB-, BB+, BB, B, CCC, CC, C, D. In reality it should be A,B,C,D,E, F, G,H, I, etc. The current scale does not reflect with clarity the ranking of risks and ratings. AA is much worse than AAA, but the uncertainty involved can be scary. Check out these corporate and sovereign debt credit ratings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0e0b365c44284f072a16b31557e837f", "text": "I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aed84ffb08e59d77acda28ee8047a37c", "text": "Not really in corporate finance, but I can see this being use to academics if it's good. As you mention, professionals usually have access to Bloomberg terminals and other data tools which kind of obsolete a third party project. Academics, on the other hand, are often lacking access to those kinds of resources.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e99b721a884edb2c4c47ceb0e0863f59", "text": "I'm not sure there is good data on Kiva, etc, but P2P microlending site Prosper has released their data. The default rates are evidently fairly high. For borrowers in the 'developed' world (the target audience of Prosper), other sources of credit are available (e.g. banks); one has to suspect, then, that borrowers on Prosper are considered too risky for bank loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5170094437efc2bd510f0477e0209077", "text": "\"Dan's link (he deleted his answer, BTW) is fine, it showed the components of the score FICO offers. Each input has data behind it, a bell curve of the behaviors and risk of the person behind it. For example, we've discussed utilization many time here. The ideal utilization is not 0%, but 1-19%. This does not mean paying interest, or carrying charges from month to month. Say I had just one card with a $10K limit. I'd want to be sure I never ran a bill above $2000. If I did, I'd see a slight drop in my score, and next month, it would go back to normal. In my case, I have enough available credit that going over 20% is rare, and if it happened, I'd pay the bill down before the bill was issued, just make a mid-cycle payment. FICO decided that those who go over 20% have a higher risk of default. And it gets higher as it goes up. Same with every aspect of the score's components. You are comparing US to non US use. In the US, it seems far more common to use our cards. In my family's case, we use very little cash, and run most of our spending through our cards. As far as The David is concerned, one should separate those who carry a balance from those who pay in full. The pay in full users are better off for their habits and responsible card use. In the US, it's not easy to rent a car or book a hotel with no card. Cards offer a cash rebate that adds up fast, and purchase protection from fraudulent vendors. They also offer extended warranty coverage. The David, and others, claim that \"\"studies prove those using cards spend 10-15% more than cash buyers.\"\" This is a proven fact from scientific studies. Only they don't exist. The best I've seen proves that college kids given a $20 bill spend more carefully than those given a $20 credit card. This doesn't extrapolate to a family budget, and never will. But that quote has a way of being repeated as fact. Yes, it's non-sense, thank you for reading and quoting my blog, I recognize the quote. The report also shows accounts that have gone to collection. An electric bill isn't a regularly reported item, it's assumed your lights are on. But if you stop paying the bill and they send your account to a collection agency, you'll see it hit your report. In response to the comment below - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied article titled Monopoly Money: The Effect of Payment Coupling and Form on Spending Behavior runs 13 pages but on the first page offers \"\"Do consumers spend differently when using one payment mode relative to another mode? For example, do consumers spend more when they receive $50 in the form of a gift card than in the form of cash? If indeed they do, then why? This research addresses these issues.\"\" $50? A $50 gift card is a nuisance, I try to use it up within hours of getting one. As I stated above, the behavior of a person with such a card doesn't scale to a many-thousand-per-month budget. Such articles, in my opinion, are nonsense, proving nothing. Unfortunately, this is a bit of a tangent to the original question, and if I put up a stand-alone \"\"Is it a fact that people spend more if using a card than cash?\"\" the question would result in being closed as one that's seeking opinions, not facts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0507b77c98c3fcf6da71fa48b8d2b9c8", "text": "My bank will let me download credit card transactions directly into a personal finance program, and by assigning categories to stores I can get at least a rough overview of that sidd of things, and then adjust categories/splits when needed. Ditto checks. Most of my spending is covered by those. Doesn't help with cash transactions, though; if I want to capture those accurately I need to save receipts. There are ocr products which claim to help capture those; haven't tried them. Currently, since my spending is fairly stable, I'm mostly leaving those as unknown; that wouldn't work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32dca599bc22f9ef3264e760921905e8", "text": "Great effort on the question. All I can advise is: If paypal does not provide the mapping table (Type, Status, Credit/Debit) you will have to build it up yourself as you go along. I would tackle it this way: Your SQL mapping table has Credit/Debit entries for all knows combinations and the Credit/Debit entry would be -1 for all. Then, as you get a list of transactions you will have to display all possible results to the user who will then tick the correct one (comparing it to the balance). You would store the Credit/Debit entry if it is unique. This way you will learn what the possible combinations are over time. Its a to the nth problem, so maybe start with a small number of transactions first. I expect you can build up pretty quickly. It will be an interesting experiment...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aaa987ba76794307b46762e7ed7696e", "text": "I did a brief analysis during my undergrad on the sustainability of Subprime Auto-Loans ...there was definitely a lot more information that I could have included in my research. IMO it'd be a decent topic that would be perfect for a quantitative argument.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5cee18f181da341e08115d366cd27c4", "text": "The Government sponsored website will give you one free report from each of the 3 bureaus every year. No subscription or anything of the sort and no ding (that I've seen). Most people check it 3 times, every 4 months. http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre34.shtm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09472cd8bdfdd9f6c5506339edeb2e32", "text": "Banks use quite a few parameters to arrive at the decision for card approval. The credit score is just one input. There are multiple other inputs it would source, for example total years in job, the number of years in current job, income streams, etc ... the exact formula is a trade secret and varies from Bank to Bank", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c08b0bf1974bb73aa8c964c2cd2b0a0c", "text": "\"An index is just a mathematical calculation based on stock prices. Anyone can create such a calculation and (given a little effort) publish it based on publicly available data. The question of \"\"open source\"\" is simply whether or not the calculator chooses to publish the calculation used. Given how easy an index is to create, the issue is not the \"\"open source\"\" nature or otherwise, but its credibility and usefulness.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8586796e8d64cc6ebeb5ef6bc6cc0f27", "text": "Yes and no, P2P Capital Markets is similar concept but is more geared towards business loans. Community Lend used to offer this service but has stopped.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a978ee57701d65e610c24bfd92a2d801", "text": "I visited annualcreditreport.com to get my annual credit report. It is only the report, not the score or FICO score. This is the only outlet I know of that allows you to get your report for free, without a bunch of strings attached or crap to sign up for and cancel later. It was very easy. I was wary of putting in my private information, but how else can they possibly pull you up? Read the instructions carefully. You go to each bureau to fetch your report, and they dutifully give you a free report, but they push hard to try and sell you a score or a report service. It is easy to avoid these if you read carefully. Once you get a report, you have print it out or you can't see it again for another year. Each bureau has a different site, with different rules, and different identity checks to get in. Again, read the instructions and it isn't hard. Instead of printing, I just saved the page as HTML. You get one html file and a folder with all the images and other stuff. This suits me but you might like to print. After you get each report, you have to click a link to back to the annualcreditreport.com site. From there you go to the next bureau. Regarding a score. Everybody does it differently. Free Issac does FICO, but anybody who pulls your credit can generate a score however they like, so getting a score isn't anywhere near as important as making sure your report is accurate. You can use credit.com to simulate a score from one of the bureaus (I can't easily see which one at the moment). It is as easy as annualcreditreport.com and I have no issue getting a simulated score and report card.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ff0d2b58a0072ba0922d31010282b2d", "text": "There are companies who sell data gleaned in aggregate from credit card providers to show how much of what category of product is sold online or offline, but that data is not cheap. 1010data is one such data aggregator we are talking to right now. Haven’t seen pricing yet but I expect 6 figures to access the data", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f7d7b47297fe882b41f5d99354d601a", "text": "\"Credit Unions have long advocated their services based on the fact that they consider your \"\"character.\"\" Unfortunately, they are then at a loss to explain how they determine the value of your character, other than to say that you're buddies & play pool together so they'll give you a loan. Your Credit History / Score is as accurate a representation of your character in business dealings as can be meaningfully quantified. It tracks your ability to effectively use and manage debt, and your propensity to pay it back responsibly or default on obligations. While it isn't perfect, it is certainly one of the best means currently available for determining someone's trustworthiness when it comes to financial matters.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f816d373a5ff06a7e35dc901fb57ffc6	How is Butterfly Trade Strategy good if the mid Strike price is already past?	[ { "docid": "e22b802afcd712c7efd5474e64ac27b6", "text": "One way to look at a butterfly is to break it into two trades. A butterfly is actually made up of two verticals... One is a debit vertical: buy 490 put and sell the 460 put. The other is a credit vertical: sell a 460 put and buy a 430 put. If someone believes Apple will fall to 460, that person could do a few things. There are other strategies but this just compares the three common ones: 1) Buy a put. This is expensive and if the stock only goes to 460 you overpay for it. 2) Buy a put vertical. This is less expensive because you offset the price of your put. 3) Buy a butterfly. This is cheapest of the three because you have the vertical in #2 as well as a credit vertical on top of that to offset your cost. The reason why someone would use the butterfly is to pay less upfront while capitalizing on a fall to 460. Of the three, this would be the better strategy to use if that happens. But REMEMBER that this only applies if the trader is right and it goes to 460. There is always a trade off for every strategy that the trader must be aware of. If the trader is wrong, and Apple goes to say 400, the put (#1) would make the most money and the butterfly(#3) would lose money while the vertical (#2) would still gain. So that is what you're sacrificing to get the benefits of the butterfly. Also helps to draw a diagram to compare the strategies.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c82a14fca33c9b00f82005e06eac1fdc", "text": "The strategy looks good on paper but in reality, the 150 call will have some time value particularly if it has got some time to mature. Let us say this time value is 0.50 , so the call costs 3.50. If the stock stays above 150 (actually above 149.50) , by the expiration of the call, you will lose this 0.50 . Then you need to keep buying calls over and over and hope one day a big down move will more than make up for all this lost premium. It is possible, but not entirely predictable. You may get lucky, but it may take many months to produce a significant move to make up for all the lost premium. If a big down move were to happen and the market had any indication of that in advance, that would be priced into the call already, so the 150 call may cost 4$ or 4.50$ if the market had wind of a big move. (a.k.a high implied volatility)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c94491cc27aa9195b884d40836d527", "text": "\"You've laid out a strategy for deciding that the top of the market has passed and then realizing some gains before the market drops too far. Regardless of whether this strategy is good at accomplishing its goal, it cannot by itself maximize your long-term profits unless you have a similar strategy for deciding that the bottom of the market has passed. Even if you sell at the perfect time at the top of the market, you can still lose lots of money by buying at the wrong time at the bottom. People have been trying to time the market like this for centuries, and on average it doesn't work out all that much better than just plopping some money into the market each week and letting it sit there for 40 years. So the real question is: what is your investment time horizon? If you need your money a year from now, well then you shouldn't be in the stock market in the first place. But if you have to have it in the market, then your plan sounds like a good one to protect yourself from losses. If you don't need your money until 20 years from now, though, then every time you get in and out of the market you're risking sacrificing all your previous \"\"smart\"\" gains with one mistimed trade. Sure, just leaving your money in the market can be psychologically taxing (cf. 2008-2009), but I guarantee that (a) you'll eventually make it all back (cf. 2010-2014) and (b) you won't \"\"miss the top\"\" or \"\"miss the bottom\"\", since you're not doing any trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e8331ac87ef4c9b89cea75db16a33ae", "text": "\"The price of the last trade... Is the price of the last trade. It indicates what one particular buyer and seller agreed upon. There is absolutely no requirement that one of them didn't offer too much or demand too little, so this is nearly meaningless as an indication of what anyone else will be willing to offer or demand. An average of trades across a sufficiently large number of transactions might indicate a rough consensus about the value of a stock, but transactions will be clustered around that average and the average itself moves over time. Either you offer to sell or buy at a particular price, wait for that price, and risk the transaction not taking place at all if nobody agrees, or you do a spot transaction and get the best price at that nanosecond (which may not be the best in the next nanosecond). Or you tell the broker what the limits are that you consider acceptable, trading these risks off against each other. Pick the one which comes closest to your intent and ignore the fact that others may be getting a slightly different price. That's just the way the market works. \"\"If his price is lower, why didn't you buy it there?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, come back when I'm out of stock and I'll be unable to sell it to you for an even better price!\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18011a7812d021e72c1240252aaacfa4", "text": "One should also point out that you make a major assumption in that the high of the day doesn't occur on a gap up in morning trading. It's unlikely that you'd fill at a reasonable price, thereby throwing your strategy into disarray.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a4af13688937e441ad07c8be39e1109", "text": "So far the answer is: observe the general direction of the market, using special tools if needed or you have them available (.e.g. Bollinger bands to help you understand the current trend) at the right time per above, do the roll with stop loss in place (meaning roll at a pre-determined max loss), and also a trailing stop loss if the roll works in your favor, to capture the profits on the roll. This trade was a learning experience. I sold the option at $20 thinking I'd get back in later in the day with the further out option at a good price, as the market goes back and forth. The underlying went up and never came back. I finally gritted my teeth and bought the new option at 23.10 (when it would have cost me about 20.20 before), i.e. a miss/loss of $3 on $20. The underlying continued to rise, from that point (hasn't been back), and now the option price is $29. Of course one needs to make sure the Implied Volatility of the option being left and the option going to is good/fair, and if not, either roll further out in time, nearer in time, our up / down the strike prices, to find the right target option. After doing that, one might do the strategy above, i.e. any good trade mgmt type strategy: seek to make a good decision, acknowledge when you were wrong (with stop loss), and act. Or, if you're right, cash in smartly (i.e. trailing stops).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8efad011153e1a252633e7cf601a316f", "text": "\"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45bfc533d97f7ecf635200aeda3fe529", "text": "\"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0cd96936a7c8983f9092d9d64ad144b", "text": "Is investing more money into a stock that you already have a stake, in which has gone up in price a good idea? What you describe here is a good idea when the stock keeps up-trending. The way to do it is say you have originally bought $1000 worth of shares, then the next purchase you buy $500 worth, then $250 worth. It is called pyramiding into your trades. However, this system would not be the best with simply a buy and hold when you keep holding even if the price starts freefalling. You would need to have a trailing stop loss on your initial trade, and then as you buy each additional trade your trailing stop loss would incorporate the additional trade and move to a level where if you get stopped out you will make an overall profit. With each additional trade your trailing stop will move higher and higher for higher protected profits. The whole point behind pyramid trading is to keep buying more of a stock that keeps performing well to increase your profits. However, each additional purchase is half the previous one so that you don't eat too much into existing profits (in the case of the uptrend reversing) and so as to not overcapitalise on the one stock. So you are using part of your existing profits in an attempt to make more profits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceee56ce06dd928fa024bac82149b0aa", "text": "\"EDIT quid keenly identified the 1:7 reverse split In May 2017. In a 1:7 reverse split, your shares are worth 7 times as much per share but you have 1/7 the amount of shares. A share worth $3.78 now was worth (all else being equal) $0.54 a month ago. So a call with a $2.50 strike a month ago was well out-of-the-money, and would now be the equivalent of a call with a $17.50 strike. A $17.50 call with a $3.78 underlying (or a $2.50 call with a $0.54 underlying) would reasonably be worth only 5 cents. So I now suspect that the quote is a stale quote that existed pre-split and hasn't been adjusted by the provider. OLD ANSWER I can find no valid reason why those calls would be so cheap. The stock price has been trending down from its onset in 2000, so either no one expects it to be above $2.50 in a month or it's so illiquid that there's not any real data to evaluate the options. They did pay some massive (30%) dividends in 2010 and 2012, they've been hemorrhaging cash for the past 4 years at least, and I have found at least on \"\"strong sell\"\" rating, so there's not much to be optimistic about. NASDAQ does not list any options for the stock, so it must be an OTC trade. With an ask size of 10 you could buy calls on 1,000 shares for $0.05, so if you can afford to lose $50 and want to take a flyer you can give it a shot, but I suspect it's not a valid quote and is something that's been manufactured by the option broker.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53bb45d891a7bec4bad44ba09a8080bb", "text": "\"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1276e1f81743f47e0912964e2eba3635", "text": "\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "591f5e587da93d2643580b54097602c9", "text": "I have done this, and the reason is to make sure that I don't run out of money in my account to place the order if there is an unexpected upswing in price. Suppose I have $1000 in my account and I want to buy 10 shares of ABCD that are currently at $99. If the price doesn't change, then I am all set, but if the price goes up to $101 then I don't have sufficient funds to make the purchase. By placing a limit order at $100 I can ensure that I have enough money to place the order. In general, it is a rather unlikely scenario that it could happen, but placing the limit order is easy to do and it gives me peace of mind. I don't know what you mean about bypassing the queue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3292817005d13deadb2e1a31d52a00c", "text": "\"If they return to their earlier prices Assuming I don't make too many poor choices That's your problem right there: you have no guarantee that stocks, will in fact return to their earlier prices rather than go down some more after the time you buy them. Your strategy only looks good and easy in hindsight when you know the exact point in time when stocks stopped going down and started going up. But to implement it, you need to predict that time, and that's impossible. I would adopt a guideline of \"\"sell when you've made X%, even if it looks like it might go higher.\"\" Congratulations, you've come up with the concept of technical analysis. Now go and read the hundreds of books that have been written about it, then think about why the people who wrote them waste time doing so rather than getting rich by using that knowledge.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06fecd6d3adef976fa7230cdaf8d5f75", "text": "At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd145cb1b9257d7f0fc1084a1d650913", "text": "I think you're missing the fact that the trader bought the $40 call but wrote the $45 call -- i.e. someone else bought the $45 call from him. That's why you have to subtract 600-100. At expiration, the following happens: So $600 + -$100 = $500 total profit. Note: In reality he would probably use the shares he gets from the first call to satisfy the shares he owes on the second call, so the math is even simpler:", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2b8716b627cfb477cb664c5a5441fc37	How an ETF reinvests dividends	[ { "docid": "960315226e3367d5270440688a4dee7f", "text": "Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cea60b302b70be03bb12fc814eafffe", "text": "SPY does not reinvest dividends. From the SPY prospectus: No Dividend Reinvestment Service No dividend reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers, at their own discretion, may offer a dividend reinvestment service under which additional Units are purchased in the secondary market at current market prices. SPY pays out quarterly the dividends it receives (after deducting fees and expenses). This is typical of ETFs. The SPY prospectus goes on to say: Distributions in cash that are reinvested in additional Units through a dividend reinvestment service, if offered by an investor’s broker-dealer, will be taxable dividends to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "226d14004f8da97cc73ed47b9a00ca7c", "text": "The shareholders can't all re-invest their dividends -- it's not possible. Paying a dividend doesn't issue any new shares, so unless some of the existing shareholders sell their shares instead of re-investing, there aren't any shares available for the shareholders to re-invest in.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9a8ccc256b4b385225e2a8fc0fbf50a1", "text": "Many brokers administer their own dividend reinvestment plans. In this case, on dividend payment date, they automatically buy from the market on behalf of their reinvestment customers, and they administer all fractional shares across all customers. All of your shares are in the broker's street name anyway, the fractional share is simply in their account system. The process is well documented for several common online brokers; so any specific questions you may have about differences in policies or implementation should be directed to your broker: https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1301060000 https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/TDA208.pdf", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a877da1a7b6a8cd31d7a572769a1639e", "text": "I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think. An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants. While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks. Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8ec31c8e05e9102812438ff56dd99ca", "text": "The answer, for me, has to do with compounding. That drop in price post-ex-div is not compounded. But if you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you buy on those post-ex-div dips in price and your money is compounded because those shares you just bought will, themselves, yeald dividends next quarter. Also, with my broker, I reinvest the dividend incurring no commission. My broker has a feature to reinvest dividends automatically and he charges no commission on those buys. Edit:I forgot to mention that you do not incurr the loss from a drop in price until you sell the security. If you do not sell post-ex-div then you have no loss. As long as the dividend remains the same (or increases) then the theoretical ROI on that security goes up. The drop in price is actually to your benefit because you are able to acquire more shares with the money you just received in the dividend So the price coming down post-ex-div is a good thing (if you buy and hold).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8", "text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f26dd48200dcb941f9970672b9fce81", "text": "\"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b23681c3322b5595b3103d3e8839086", "text": "\"Generally, ETFs work on the basis that there exists a pair of values that can be taken at any moment in time: A Net Asset Value of each share in the fund and a trading market price of each share in the fund. It may help to picture these in baskets of about 50,000 shares for the creation/redemption process. If the NAV is greater than the market price, then arbitrageurs will buy up shares at the market price and do an \"\"in-kind\"\" transaction that will be worth the NAV value that the arbitrageurs could turn around and sell for an immediate profit. If the market price is greater than the NAV, then the arbitrageurs will buy up the underlying securities that can be exchanged \"\"in-kind\"\" for shares in the fund that can then be sold on the market for an immediate profit. What is the ETF Creation/Redemption Mechanism? would be a source on this though I imagine there are others. Now, in the case of VXX, there is something to be said for how much trading is being done and what impact this can have. From a July 8, 2013 Yahoo Finance article: At big option trade in the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Note is looking for another jump in volatility. More than 250,000 VXX options have already traded, twice its daily average over the last month. optionMONSTER systems show that a trader bought 13,298 August 26 calls for the ask price of $0.24 in volume that was 6 times the strike's previous open interest, clearly indicating new activity. Now the total returns of the ETF are a combination of changes in share price plus what happens with the distributions which could be held as cash or reinvested to purchase more shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3758f89694c049210e7beac9efa2c3a", "text": "The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b", "text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb5ee20e74ef216c5a129e9c5f42fc1f", "text": "There are ETFs and mutual funds that pay dividends. Mutual funds and ETFs are quite similar. Your advisor is correct regarding future funds you invest. But you already had incurred the risk of buying an individual stock. That is a 'sunk cost'. If you were satisfied with the returns you could have retained the HD stock you already owned and just put future moneys into an ETF or mutual fund. BTW: does your advisor receive a commission from your purchase of a mutual fund? That may have been his motivation to give you the advice to sell your existing holdings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f94c2aedfcae7a40f3f9d639c2e702a", "text": "Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b40e6bb387ddd54926c012a95535149", "text": "When you invest in an ETF or mutual fund, you're not investing in stocks or bonds. You're buying shares of a company that invests in stocks or bonds. This level of indirection is what makes it so bond funds do not 'mature.' Bonds inside of ETFs or mutual funds do have a maturity date. When they mature, the fund manager uses the principal value that is returned to purchase another bond that meets the investment objectives of the fund. So the fund never matures, since it is always investing in more bonds when the old ones mature. Unit investment trusts made of bonds do have a maturity date as well, since the portfolio does not change once the UIT is issued. As the individual bonds in the portfolio mature, the principle value is returned to investors. So the overall maturity date is effectively the maturity date of the last bond in the trust. All of the statements quoted above are accurate in explaining why there is no guarantee of a return of principle when investing in bond funds (ETF or open-ended mutual fund). The bonds they hold do mature, but are replaced within the fund as needed. The investor will never see it happen unless they watch the holdings reports filed by the funds. The only way to have an assurance of the return of principle is to invest in individual bonds, or in unit trusts made up of bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efbb304b34f82e85b8b06a3c4e46874f", "text": "\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "446c12b0d6ce872ec6a585017050af10", "text": "\"Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit, must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "413d3bf0ea58ed81d3f3075a50cae56d", "text": "Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2dd5540db63905132ff6419c895d1df", "text": "\"Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list. How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent \"\"idea\"\" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways. Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them. You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes. What if you can't find a renter? What if you're late paying someone back? What if your vendor \"\"repairs\"\" something incorrectly? What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work? What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted? Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted? Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms? What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded. You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur. You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money. Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if. Your ego-stroking play to \"\"open source crowd-sourced wisdom\"\" is nothing more than a silly request for vague advice at no cost. Starting a project on trust, transparency and integrity is naive. This is about money. Why on earth should anyone trust you with their money if you won't do the most basic step of stewardship and spend a couple hundred pounds to talk to a local professional about organizing your first ever project. To answer your question directly, the first precaution you should take is not taking money from any of your friends or family.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
49d1612e39da45ef143493ada99b7e14	Looking at Options Liquidity: what makes some stocks so attractive for options traders?	[ { "docid": "eb87135e92e9f9687b5bcd31ce84598b", "text": "Option liquidity and underlying liquidity tend to go hand in hand. According to regulation, what kinds of issues can have options even trading are restricted by volume and cost due to registration with the authorities. Studies have shown that the introduction of option trading causes a spike in underlying trading. Market makers and the like can provide more option liquidity if there is more underlying and option liquidity, a reflexive relationship. The cost to provide liquidity is directly related to the cost for liquidity providers to hedge, as evidenced by the bid ask spread. Liquidity providers in option markets prefer to hedge mostly with other options, hedging residual greeks with other assets such as the underlying, volatility, time, interest rates, etc because trading costs are lower since the two offsetting options hedge most of each other out, requiring less trading in the other assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2be1313d57eeb1d2b7ff3bba4aed56de", "text": "The penny pilot program has a dramatic effect on increasing options liquidity. Bids can be posted at .01 penny increments instead of .05 increments. A lot of money is lost dealing with .05 increments. Issues are added to the penny pilot program based on existing liquidity in both the stock and the options market, but the utility of the penny pilot program outweighs the discretionary liquidity judgement that the CBOE makes to list issues in that program. The reason the CBOE doesn't list all stocks in the penny pilot program is because they believe that their data vendors cannot handle all of the market data. But they have been saying this since 2006 and storage and bandwidth technology has greatly improved since then.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e921279cd8bbf2d1d7bc96b3611cba93", "text": "\"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \"\"bid up\"\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0400607794f04d15bf9fdfe8a22e00b3", "text": "\"I thought the other answers had some good aspect but also some things that might not be completely correct, so I'll take a shot. As noted by others, there are three different types of entities in your question: The ETF SPY, the index SPX, and options contracts. First, let's deal with the options contracts. You can buy options on the ETF SPY or marked to the index SPX. Either way, options are about the price of the ETF / index at some future date, so the local min and max of the \"\"underlying\"\" symbol generally will not coincide with the min and max of the options. Of course, the closer the expiration date on the option, the more closely the option price tracks its underlying directly. Beyond the difference in how they are priced, the options market has different liquidity, and so it may not be able to track quick moves in the underlying. (Although there's a reasonably robust market for option on SPY and SPX specifically.) Second, let's ask what forces really make SPY and SPX move together as much as they do. It's one thing to say \"\"SPY is tied to SPX,\"\" but how? There are several answers to this, but I'll argue that the most important factor is that there's a notion of \"\"authorized participants\"\" who are players in the market who can \"\"create\"\" shares of SPY at will. They do this by accumulating stock in the constituent companies and turning them into the market maker. There's also the corresponding notion of \"\"redemption\"\" by which an authorized participant will turn in a share of SPY to get stock in the constituent companies. (See http://www.spdrsmobile.com/content/how-etfs-are-created-and-redeemed and http://www.etf.com/etf-education-center/7540-what-is-the-etf-creationredemption-mechanism.html) Meanwhile, SPX is just computed from the prices of the constituent companies, so it's got no market forces directly on it. It just reflects what the prices of the companies in the index are doing. (Of course those companies are subject to market forces.) Key point: Creation / redemption is the real driver for keeping the price aligned. If it gets too far out of line, then it creates an arbitrage opportunity for an authorized participant. If the price of SPY gets \"\"too high\"\" compared to SPX (and therefore the constituent stocks), an authorized participant can simultaneously sell short SPY shares and buy the constituent companies' stocks. They can then use the redemption process to close their position at no risk. And vice versa if SPY gets \"\"too low.\"\" Now that we understand why they move together, why don't they move together perfectly. To some extent information about fees, slight differences in composition between SPY and SPX over time, etc. do play. The bigger reasons are probably that (a) there are not a lot of authorized participants, (b) there are a relatively large number of companies represented in SPY, so there's some actual cost and risk involved in trying to quickly buy/sell the full set to capture the theoretical arbitrage that I described, and (c) redemption / creation units only come in pretty big blocks, which complicates the issues under point b. You asked about dividends, so let me comment briefly on that too. The dividend on SPY is (more or less) passing on the dividends from the constituent companies. (I think - not completely sure - that the market maker deducts its fees from this cash, so it's not a direct pass through.) But each company pays on its own schedule and SPY does not make a payment every time, so it's holding a corresponding amount of cash between its dividend payments. This is factored into the price through the creation / redemption process. I don't know how big of a factor it is though.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "683ed52a2c1f779f32da70bf19112b14", "text": "Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e72405e4b94676de0eaf1aac18d330f2", "text": "In my IRA I try to find stocks that are in growing sectors but have are undervalued by traditional metrics like PE or book value; I make sure that they have lower debt levels than their peers, are profitable, and at least have comparable margins. I started trading options to make better returns off of indices or etfs. It seems overlooked but it's pretty good, in another thread I was telling someone about my strategy buy applying it to thier portfolio: https://www.reddit.com/r/options/comments/77bt17/ive_been_trading_stocks_for_a_year_and_am/dolydu8/?context=3 I double checked, I told him/her I would buy the DIA Jan 19 2018 call 225 for 795. 8 days later it's trading for 1085. Nearly 50% in a week. It'll never be 300% earnings returns, but I'm happy to take it slow. Shorting is a very different animal it takes a lot to get things right.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef598db00822ea62dc1ec99fb6904b32", "text": "Thanks. Just to clarify I am looking for a more value-neutral answer in terms of things like Sharpe ratios. I think it's an oversimplification to say that on average you lose money because of put options - even if they expire uselessly 90% of the time, they still have some expected payoff that kicks in 10% of the time, and if the price is less than the expected payoff you will earn money in the long term by investing in put options (I am sure you know this as a PhD student I just wanted to get it out there.)I guess more formally my question would be are there studies on whether options prices correspond well to the diversification benefits they offer from an MPT point of view.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21ad8c178fcaf9a290e700ecbcbab79c", "text": "I have no idea if Wikivest can handle options, but I've been pretty satisfied with it as a portfolio visualization tool. It links automatically with many brokerage accounts, and has breakdowns by both portfolio and individual investment levels.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8abe679fe1c9ad63afa4e43cbea0f17a", "text": "Intuitive? I doubt it. Derivatives are not the simplest thing to understand. The price is either in the money or it isn't. (by the way, exactly 'at the money' is not 'in the money.') An option that's not in the money has time value only. As the price rises, and the option is more and more in the money, the time value drops. We have a $40 stock. It makes sense to me that a $40 strike price is all just a bet the stock will rise, there's no intrinsic value. The option prices at about $4.00 for one year out, with 25% volatility. But the strike of $30 is at $10.68, with $10 in the money and only .68 in time premium. There's a great calculator on line to tinker with. Volatility is a key component of options trading. Think about it. If a stock rises 5%/yr but rarely goes up any more or less, just steady up, why would you even buy an option that was even 10% out of the money? The only way I can describe this is to look at a bell curve and how there's a 1/6 chance the event will be above one standard deviation. If that standard deviation is small, the chance of hitting the higher strikes is also small. I wrote an article Betting on Apple at 9 to 2 in which I describe how a pair of option trades was set up so that a 35% rise in Apple stock would return 354% and Apple had two years to reach its target. I offer this as an example of options trading not being theory, but something that many are engaged in. What I found curious about the trade was that Apple's volatility was high enough that a 35% move didn't seem like the 4.5 to 1 risk the market said it was. As of today, Apple needs to rise 13% in the next 10 months for the trade to pay off. (Disclosure - the long time to expiration was both good and bad, two years to recover 35% seemed reasonable, but 2 years could bring anything in the macro sense. Another recession, some worldwide event that would impact Apple's market, etc. The average investor will not have the patience for these long term option trades.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc4bec833f6668910eaae4a1fc0b2ba", "text": "VXX VZX XVIZ and there are plenty others correlated to market volatility if you want the wildest hedge, use VXX, it is also the most liquid", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a9e38527d7e1f9e8e0d36c2cc010dfc", "text": "\"I'm assuming the question is about how to compare two ETFs that track the same index. I'd look at (for ETFs -- ignoring index funds): So, for example you might compare SPY vs IVV: SPY has about 100x the volume. Sure, IVV has 2M shares trading, so it is liquid \"\"enough\"\". But the bigger volume on SPY might matter to you if you use options: open interest is as much as 1000x more on SPY. Even if you have no interest in options, the spreads on SPY are probably going to be slightly smaller. They both have 0.09% expense ratios. When I looked on 2010-9-6, SPY was trading at a slight discount, IVV was at a slight premium. Looking for any sort of trend is left as an exercise to the reader... Grab the prospectus for each to examine the rules they set for fund makeup. Both come from well-known issuers and have a decent history. (Rather than crazy Uncle Ed's pawn shop, or the Central Bank of Stilumunistan.) So unless you find something in the SPY prospectus that makes you queasy, the higher volume and equal expense ratios would seem to suggest it over IVV. The fact that it is at a (tiny) discount right now is a (tiny) bonus.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fd22fb4b04a3bab76b172ea9a18a837", "text": "Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur. This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b9e9bdb749c52279c45e7c8b544e887", "text": "+1. Most ETFs (namely the passive index-tracking ones) will be taking liquidity via market on close orders, since they absolutely need to be filled. Active ETFs, which may have more discretion, may be able to provide liquidity during the day based on market conditions and get rebates that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61e52ca579011dffa82ad775f51ad39f", "text": "Some liquidity Since you're using IB, and you seem to be an investor not a trader, so you won't notice especially if you walk your orders, but you will suffer the bid/ask spread as everyone else albeit wider. If buying, the best strategy unless if one is time constrained is to walk the entire bid from the best bid to the best ask. It is highly likely that someone will hit your order before you hit the best ask. If they don't, as a long term investor, the few pennies won't make or break you, especially if the price per share is 100 USD equivalent, but it is an excellent habit to form and fun. Since you're buying ETFs, even though your orders are small, you would be adding liquidity to your market, helping it become more efficient because your orders could be used to arbitrage against all of the ETF's holdings, in turn providing liquidity for those holdings. No liquidity This could only be done with an extremely low cost broker like IB because the trading commissions would make it prohibitively expensive. There are huge risks when trading an illiquid security such as VEUR. EWL would be much less risky thus less expensive. Securities with no liquidity can be traded, but they must be traded very carefully. In the case of a security that can only attract about 20 shares per day in volume, only single shares should be bid. The market makers, suffering from a dearth in volume may not even be willing to haggle; therefore, the only recourse is a statistical arbitrageur, who will attempt to profit from the spread between other more liquid versions of the security. Considering the available alternative, VEUR is not recommended to trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab529d74108e9de7c8dac0355282dec1", "text": "Long convexity is achieved by owning long dated low delta options. When a significant move occurs in the underlying the volatility curve will move higher. Instead of a linear relationship between your long position and it's return, you receive a multiple of the linear return. For example: Share price $50 Long 1 (equals 100 shares) contract of a 2 year 100 call Assume this is a 5 delta option If the stock price rises to $70 the delta of the option will rise because it is now closer to the strike. Lets assume it is now a 20 delta option. Then Expected return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.20-.05)=$300 However what happens is the entire volatility surface rises and causes the 20 delta option to be 30 delta option. Then The return on a $20 price move higher, 100 shares($20)(.30-.05)=$500 This $200 extra gain is due to convexity and explains why option traders are willing to pay above the theoretical price for these options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ec6f6d74a9946f9c7b7f8f7132d8642", "text": "I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd44277568aafe069a5ce3e22647d487", "text": "I would make a change to the answer from olchauvin: If you buy a call, that's because you expect that the value of call options will go up. So if you still think that options prices will go up, then a sell-off in the stock may be a good point to buy more calls for cheaper. It would be your call at that point (no pun intended). Here is some theory which may help. An options trader in a bank would say that the value of a call option can go up for two reasons: The VIX index is a measure of the levels of implied volatility, so you could intuitively say that when you trade options you are taking a view on two components: the underlying stock, and the level of the VIX index. Importantly, as you get closer to the expiry date this second effect diminishes: big jumps up in the VIX will produce smaller increases in the value of the call option. Taking this point to its limit, at maturity the value of the call option is only dependent on the price of the underlying stock. An options trader would say that the vega of a call option decreases as it gets closer to expiry. A consequence of this is that if pure options traders are naturally less inclined to buy and hold to expiry (because otherwise they would really just be taking a view on the stock price rather than the stock price & the implied volatility surface). Trading options without thinking too much about implied volatities is of course a valid strategy -- maybe you just use them because you will automatically have a mechanism which limits losses on your positions. But I am just trying to give you an impression of the bigger picture.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2c41eabc965ed4ef9f591c16015e3cf9	Is it legal to sell my stock at any specified price to a specified person in US Market?	[ { "docid": "9100a3e1cee41f47fc7d15a0ffe99996", "text": "So I want to sell my 100 shares of AAPL to him at a price of 10 or even 1 US Dollar. Is that legal/allowed? Of course. It's your stocks - do with it what you want. if the two persons are not served by a same broker. You'll have to talk to your broker about the technicalities of the transaction. if the person who sell are US citizen and the person who buy are not, and and vice-versa Since you asked specifically about US citizenship, I'll assume you're in the US or the transaction is taking place in the US. Citizenship has nothing to do with it (except may be for economic sanctions against Russians or Iranians that may come into play). What is important is the tax residency status. Such a transfer is essentially a gift, and if you're a US tax resident (which doesn't correlate to your immigration status necessarily) - you'll have to deal with the gift tax consequences on the discount value. For example - you have 100 shares of AAPL which you sold to your friend for $1 each when the fair market value (FMV) was $501. So essentially, the friend got $50,100 value for $100. I.e.: $50K gift. Since this amount is above the annual $14K exemption - you'll have to deal with the gift tax and file gift tax return. There are also consequences for the capital gains tax for both you and your friend. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics given your circumstances. If you (or the recipient) are also a foreign citizen/tax resident - then that country's laws also may affect your situation.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a195bc1db3e3089f9216fa4126fd4007", "text": "\"Yes, you can do that, but you have to have the stocks issued in your name (stocks that you're holding through your broker are issued in \"\"street name\"\" to your broker). If you have a physical stock certificate issued in your name - you just endorse it like you would endorse a check and transfer the ownership. If the stocks don't physically exist - you let the stock registrar know that the ownership has been transferred to someone else. As to the price - the company doesn't care much about the price of private sales, but the taxing agency will. In the US, for example, you report such a transaction as either a gift (IRS form 709), if the transaction was at a price significantly lower than the FMV (or significantly higher, on the other end), or a sale (IRS form 1040, schedule D) if the transaction was at FMV.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1113a65ceab6020675408bde08a986cd", "text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ded64cf4071846fc1a184032030f7933", "text": "Despite the fact that I think there is a litany of inaccuracies and misunderstandings related to quoted price and transaction price and the way prices move and assets transact; if you were able to, under these extremely narrow and very unlikely conditions, affect the prices of these assets that would be market manipulation in the eyes of the SEC. Link to the SEC page about market manipulation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84be8a7c538fae48665f33c5a50e9a99", "text": "\"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbd9140f2be2d991c2da8d182d63bf9c", "text": "You can, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd997606149f0c094aedc16193b7b9f3", "text": "You can ask for 305rs, but as long as shares are available at lower prices you won't sell. Only when your ask becomes the lowest available price will someone buy from you. See many past questions about how buyers and sellers are matched by the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c47b52ea6e8fadc7db739bf74c559735", "text": "\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f17641cdf736100a78e0521fc4b00a67", "text": "\"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59b6f3eb56c43f3107ec7bcacdb5d90c", "text": "\"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc", "text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3958b9cb8e53f34f5db3249b09a9fa1e", "text": "No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ede6a47dd7289c2b8990c723b09625da", "text": "A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price. There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price. Nothing needs to have happened in between.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "646175a13562c6472dc40f098d876dbc", "text": "buy above the current price in the stock market You can do that, but what is the purpose to do so ? Brokers take the limit price of your order as the highest price you are going to pay. So if an order can be fulfilled below the limit they will do so. can I sell below the current price You can put in a order to do so. But what I have seen with my current broker is that the order never reached the market and wasn't executed at all. The broker might have some safeguards or process in place to stop me from doing so. Not sure how other brokers deal with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e3085ac5c2dcd51f5a17ac8f04f1cdb", "text": "\"This information is clearly \"\"material\"\" (large impact) and \"\"non-public\"\" according to the statement of the problem. Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such. Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51baf28465005bacebd17c74ed0bd1b2", "text": "Yes you can, provided if buyers are available. Normally high liquidty stocks can be sold at market prices a little higher or lower.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
20c2a695ea8c289b0ca8f4f0e46c4993	I received a share of Apple stock. Now what?	[ { "docid": "29d55ab26f576d446bf5ddcd88929106", "text": "Congratulations! You own a (very small) slice of Apple. As a stockholder, you have a vote on important decisions that the company makes. Each year Apple has a stockholder meeting in Cupertino that you are invited to. If you are unable to attend and vote, you can vote by proxy, which simply means that you register your vote before the meeting. You just missed this year's meeting, which was held on February 26, 2016. They elected people to the board of directors, chose an accounting firm, and voted on some other proposals. Votes are based on the number of shares you own; since you only own one share, your vote is very small compared to some of the other stockholders. Besides voting, you are entitled to receive profit from the company, if the company chooses to pay this out in the form of dividends. Apple's dividend for the last several quarters has been $0.52 per share, which means that you will likely receive 4 small checks from Apple each year. The value of the share of stock that you have changes daily. Today, it is worth about $100. You can sell this stock whenever you like; however, since you have a paper certificate, in order to sell this stock on the stock market, you would need to give your certificate to a stock broker before they can sell it for you. The broker will charge a fee to sell it for you. Apple has a website for stockholders at investor.apple.com with some more information about owning Apple stock. One of the things you'll find here is information on how to update your contact information, which you will want to do if you move, so that Apple can continue to send you your proxy materials and dividend checks.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d524fb1f021f6300265329ed8a3a182b", "text": "\"In Second Opinion's opinion, they say \"\"Do not initiate new position.\"\" This means do not buy the stock if you do not already own it. Since they also say to hold if you do own it, this is a very \"\"who knows what it will do\"\" neutral position (IMO).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e799c366e323ebc0784a882dacfa5788", "text": "What percent of a company are you buying when you purchase stock? The percent of a company represented by a single share can be calculated by percent = 1/number_of_shares100% Apple comprises 5,250,000,000 shares, so one share makes up about 1.9e-8% of a company, or 0.000000019% of Apple.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e29cffd92873ce7bd0d57d81102cb04", "text": "You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9f41d52e6980a7520c2282902d04056", "text": "Disclaimer - I am 51. Not sure how that happened, because I remember being in my late teens like it was yesterday. I've learned that picking individual stocks is tough. Very tough. For every Apple, there are dozens that go sideways for years or go under. You don't mention how much you have to invest, but I suggest (A) if you have any income at all, open a Roth IRA. You are probably in the zero or 10% bracket, and now is the time to do this. Then, invest in ETFs or Index Mutual Funds. If one can get S&P minus .05% over their investing life, they will beat most investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eb4ed9e3d7873c6edbd06c824858be5", "text": "If this is a one to one share exchange with added cash to make up the difference in value, you're getting 1 share of XYZ plus $19.20 in cash for each share of ABC. They calculated the per share price they're offering ($36) and subtracted the value of XYZ share at the time of the offer ($16.80) to get the cash part ($19.20). The value of XYZ after is subject to investor reaction. Nobody can accurately predict stock values. If you see the price dropping, owners of XYZ are selling because they feel that they no longer wish to own XYZ. If XYZ is rising, investors feel like the merger is a positive move and they are buying (or the company is buying back shares). Bottom line is the cash is a sure thing, the stock is not. You called it a merger, but it's actually a takeover. My advice is to evaluate both stocks, see if you wish to continue owning XYZ, and determine whether you'd rather sell ABC or take the offer. The value of ABC afterwards, if you decline the offer, is something that I cannot advise you on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7398abe8544fccf27a34b60e839f28b3", "text": "You can check whether the company whose stock you want to buy is present on an european market. For instance this is the case for Apple at Frankfurt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0d17415eded90e62972b593b0bcd960", "text": "\"Your employer should send you a statement with this information. If they didn't, you should still be able to find it through ETrade. Navigate to: Trading & Portfolios>Portfolios. Select the stock plan account. Under \"\"Restricted Stock\"\", you should see a list of your grants. If you click on the grant in question, you should see a breakdown of how many shares were vested and released by date. It will also tell you the cost basis per share and the amount of taxes withheld. You calculate your cost basis by multiplying the number of released shares by the cost basis per share. You can ignore the ordinary income tax and taxes withheld since they will already have been included on your W2 earnings and withholdings. Really all you need to do is report the capital gain or loss from the cost basis (which if you sold right away will be rather small).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d3024badcf485a7f35871a15bc54bf9", "text": "\"The question you are asking concerns the exercise of a short option position. The other replies do not appear to address this situation. Suppose that Apple is trading at $96 and you sell a put option with a strike price of $95 for some future delivery date - say August 2016. The option contract is for 100 shares and you sell the contract for a premium of $3.20. When you sell the option your account will be credited with the premium and debited with the broker commission. The premium you receive will be $320 = 100 x $3.20. The commission you pay will depend on you broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple drops to $90 and your option is exercised, either on expiry or prior to expiry. Then you would be obliged to take delivery of 100 Apple shares at the contracted option strike price of $95 costing you $9,500 plus broker commission. If you immediately sell the Apple shares you have purchased under your contract obligations, then assuming you sell the shares at the current market price of $90 you would realise a loss of $500 ( = 100x($95-$90) )plus commission. Since you received a premium of $320 when you sold the put option, your net loss would be $500-$320 = $180 plus any commissions paid to your broker. Now let's look at the case of selling a call option. Again assume that the price of Apple is $96 and you sell a call option for 100 shares with a strike price of $97 for a premium of $3.60. The premium you receive would be $360 = 100 x $3.60. You would also be debited for commission by your broker. Now suppose that the price of Apple shares rises to $101 and your option is exercised. Then you would be obliged to deliver 100 Apple shares to the party exercising the option at the contracted strike price of $97. If you did not own the shares to effect delivery, then you would need to purchase those shares in the market at the current market price of $101, and then sell them to the party exercising the option at the strike price of $97. This would realise an immediate loss of $400 = 100 x ($101-$97) plus any commission payable. If you did own the shares, then you would simply deliver them and possibly pay some commission or a delivery fee to your broker. Since you received $360 when you sold the option, your net loss would be $40 = $400-$360 plus any commission and fees payable to the broker. It is important to understand that in addition to these accounting items, short option positions carry with them a \"\"margin\"\" requirement. You will need to maintain a margin deposit to show \"\"good faith\"\" so long as the short option position is open. If the option you have sold moves against you, then you will be called upon to put up extra margin to cover any potential losses.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2bfbfbabfc07ef43711447587646f45", "text": "A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59ed460e51c03b18119d4006de23a159", "text": "Similar premise, yes. It's an investment so you're definitely hoping it grows so you can sell it for a profit/gain. Public (stock market) vs. private (shark tank) are a little different though in terms of how much money you get and the form of income. With stocks, if you buy X number of shares at a certain price, you definitely want to sell them when they are worth more. However, you don't get, say 0.001% (or whatever percentage you own, it would be trivial) of the profits. They just pay a dividend to you based on a pre-determined amount and multiply it by the number of shares you own and that would be your income. Unless you're like Warren Buffet and Berkshire who can buy significant stakes of companies through the stock market, then they can likely put the investment on the balance sheet of his company, but that's a different discussion. It would also be expensive as hell to do that. With shark tank investors, the main benefit they get is significant ownership of a company for a cheap price, however the risk can be greater too as these companies don't have a strong foundation of sales and are just beginning. Investing in Apple vs. a small business is pretty significant difference haha. These companies are so small and in such a weak financial position which is why they're seeking money to grow, so they have almost no leverage. Mark Cuban could swoop in and offer $50k for 25% and that's almost worth it relative to what $50k in Apple shares would get him. It's all about the return. Apple and other big public companies are mature and most of the growth has already happened so there is little upside. With these startups, if they ever take off then and you own 25% of the company, it can be worth billions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6812554ac6a6fe2c714ab6e6f19a657c", "text": "\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e276c660232996a2c7ca6794e960005", "text": "You could try to refine your options strategy: For instance you could buy the USD 750 call option(s) you mentioned and at the same time sell (short) call options with a higher strike price, which is above the share price level you expect that Apple will trade at in one year (for instance USD 1,100). By doing this, you would receive the premium of the call option(s) with the higher option, which in turn would help you finance buying your USD 750 call(s). The net effect of this trading strategy would be that you would give up the extra profit you would earn if Apple would rose above USD 1,100 (the strike price of the call option sold short). Your total risk would be even less than with your actual strategy (in my view).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e80f47225d38500917569c61f2408f", "text": "In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d72dc32aae29c0d106cd27b4f1755d9", "text": "\"Have the stock certificate in with a letter from the previous owner of the company from what I can tell in the letter these stocks were distributed from the owner himself stating \"\"after evaluation we have determined that your investment in this company is worth 10,000 shares at $1.00 a piece\"\" as well as I believe these shares were also acquired when the company was going through name changes or their company was bought\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "954c15a2906ae58f160e91c32a0a1c96", "text": "I wouldn't get too caught up with this. Doesn't sound like this is even stock reconciliation, more ensuring the cash you've received for dividends & other corporate actions agrees to your expected entitlements and if not raising claims etc.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4d29080198f9313e9a43616466801249	What is down -34% in stock terms?	[ { "docid": "20d25eb66d23c393eb8804674b95aa13", "text": "\"The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written \"\"The stock is down by 25%\"\", not \"\"down by -25%\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6a27d3608ee5ee741952a041249e941d", "text": "Only on an accounting basis. The moment they start selling, it would plunge. Take a look at all the small float tech IPOs. Big pop, but once the lockup period ends, it drops 50% as insiders sell. In the end, fundamentals will rule. Facebook managed to unload a quarter of the company at the vastly inflated $38, which is very impressive. The other tech IPOs typically sell less than 10%, because selling more would lead to very low share prices. Remember, these guys are not retail investors selling 100 shares. The ticker shows the price of the last block of shares that was traded, but when someone tries to sell a couple million shares, then it will plunge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66f5dd2e8ddbe22d20e0b4d81daef75f", "text": "I don't have a direct short position. It is a structured product linked to the performance of Tesla. I basically get a fixed coupon payment every quater and as long as Tesla doesn't move up more than 50% in the next half year I get my initial investment back plus the coupons. If it should move up more than 50% I lose that percentage of my initial investment", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187f3a5c7edd8b2f15765e8c96cb1b6e", "text": "I do not fully understand the transactions involved, but it appears that there was a reverse stock split (20:1) and some legal status change as well on June 29th. This seems to be the cause for the change in valuation of the stock as the dates match the drop. https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RMSLD/filings", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57b5f0d983c7a065b61c11d2854ade30", "text": "\"You have heard the old adage \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \"\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\"\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04df881344f4003c31ca6fb7b9d516fe", "text": "This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ad82bda077546c30c1a05b67d88ed0d", "text": "Consider trailing stop losses maybe 5% below your profit target, if you want a simplistic answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2ae964b744bb4861e1d2b3d43a79867", "text": "Roll it into another put with a lower strike and hope it keeps going down. At the very least it will defray the cost of the long position. Ps I think you're looking for the word hedge not lever.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceb81a043af8bf59ab9c339d99423dfd", "text": "Personally, I have been in that situation too often that now I am selling at the first tick down! (not exactly but you get the idea..) I have learned over the years to not fall in love with any stock, and this is a very hard thing to do. Limit your losses and take profit when you are satisfied with them. Nothing prevents you from buying back in this stock but why buying when it is going down? Just my 2 cents.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0d96161e8f3b899c36c596612638ed2", "text": "The dividend is for a quarter of the year, three months. 80 cents is 3.9% of $20.51. Presumably the Div/yield changes as the stock price changes. On Yahoo, they specify that the yield is based on a particular stated date. So it's only the exact number if the stock trades at the price on that date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d5b2a12a383792bc00d0bf906c9a9e6", "text": "You should be worried. You have made the mistake of entering an investment on the recommendation of family/friend. The last think you should do is make another mistake of just leaving it and hoping it will go up again. Your stock has dropped 37.6% from its high of $74.50. That means it has to go up over 60% just to reach the high of $74.50. You are correct this may never happen or if it does it could take a long, long time to get up to its previous highs. What is the company doing to turn its fortunes around? Take a look at some other examples: QAN.AX - Qantas Airways This stock reached a high of around $6 in late 2007 after a nice uptrend over a year and a half, it then dropped drastically at the start of the GFC, and has since kept falling and is now priced at just $1.15. QAN reported its first ever loss earlier this year, but its problems were evident much earlier. AAPL - Apple Inc. AAPL reach a high of just over $700 in September 2013, then dropped to around $400 and has recovered a bit to about $525 (still 25% below its highs) and looks to be at the start of another downtrend. How long will it take AAPL to get back to $700, more than 33% from its current price? TEN.AX - Ten Network Holdings Limited TEN reached a high of $4.26 in late 2004 after a nice uptrend during 2004. It then started a steep journey downwards and is still going down. It is now priced at just $0.25, a whopping 94% below its high. It will have to increase by 1600% just to reach its high of $4.26 (which I think will never happen). Can a stock come back from a drastic downtrend? Yes it can. It doesn't always happen, but a company can turn around and can reach and even surpass it previous highs. The question is how and when will this happen? How long will you keep your capital tied up in a stock that is going nowhere and has every chance of going further down? The most important thing with any investment is to protect your current capital. If you lose all your capital you cannot make any new investments until you build up more capital. That is why it is so important to have a risk management strategy and decide what is your get out point if things go against you before you get into any new investment. Have a stop loss. I would get out of your investment before you lose more capital. If you had set a stop loss at 20% off the stock's last highs, you would have gotten out at about $59.60, 28% higher than the current share price of $46.50. If you do further analysis on this company and find that it is improving its prospects and the stock price breaks up through its current ranging band, then you can always buy back in. However, do you still want to be in the stock if it breaks the range band on the downside? In this case who knows how low it can continue to go. N.B. This is my opinion, as others would have theirs, and what I would do in your current situation with this stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "750af12512219809902a72c56a4f1447", "text": "I watched FRAN drop 50% when their CEO resigned a year or so ago. From 20 a share to 10. Took a year to fully recover and then slid to below 10. Of course they are getting slaughtered with the rest of retail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9605b4ae543c68f5c3a18c11da6bbdd2", "text": "The time when you might want to do this is if you think BBY is undervalued already. If you'd be happy buying the stock now, you'd be happy buying it lower (at the strike price of the put option you sold). If the stock doesn't go down, you win. If it does, you still win, because you get the stock at the strike price. If I recall correctly Warren Buffett did this with Coca-Cola. But that's Warren Buffett.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fad0278837675cda6eb7091ff1df326a", "text": "\"I didn't downvote but I will disagree wholeheartedly with your 75% decline analogy. That's like a palm reader predicting that someone is going to die. Well no shit, I'm sure someone is, somewhere, at some point. Or an analyst saying a stock will drop because of A, but it actually drops because of B, and you say \"\"See! I told you it was going to drop!\"\". All you're doing at that point is throwing something at a wall and hoping it sticks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a38877baeb397e6c9892d20f6f17f828", "text": "\"First, I would like to use a better chart. In my opinion, a close of day line chart obscures a lot of important information. Here is a daily OHLC log chart: The initial drop from the 1099.23 close on Oct 3 was to 839.8 intraday, to close at 899.22 on Oct 10. After this the market was still very volatile and reached a low of 747.78 on Nov 20, closing only slightly higher than this. It traded as high as 934.70 on Jan 6, 2009, but the whole period of Nov 24 - Feb 13 was somewhat of a trading range of roughly 800-900. Despite this, the news reports of the time were frequently saying things like \"\"this isn't going to be a V shaped recovery, it is going to be U shaped.\"\" The roughly one week dip you see Feb 27 - Mar 9 taking it to an intraday low of 666.79 (only about 11% below the previous low) on first glance appears to be just a continuation of the previous trend. However... The Mar 10 uptrend started with various news articles (such as this one) which I recall at the time suggested things like reinstating the parts of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 which had been repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. Although these attempts appear to have been unsuccessful, the widespread telegraphing of such attempts in the media seemed to have reversed a common notion which I saw widespread on forums and other places that, \"\"we are going to be in this mess forever, the market has nowhere to go but down, and therefore shorting the market is a good idea now.\"\" I don't find the article itself, but one prominent theme was the \"\"up-tick\"\" rule on short selling: source From this viewpoint, then, that the last dip was driven not so much by a recognition that the economy was really in the toilet (as this really was discounted in the first drop and at least by late November had already been figured into the price). Instead, it was sort of the opposite of a market top, where now you started seeing individual investors jump on the band-wagon and decide that now was the time for a foray into selling (short). The fact that the up-tick rule was likely to be re-instated had a noticeable effect on halting the final slide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4af7c5b84f8a8e9b587e166afcedb5c", "text": "If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
92b319d99f70e3cded65a9bd4ae1c0ed	Does negative P/E ratio mean stock is weak?	[ { "docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581", "text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "99d863578d26125199b3f9ac63a5bf4a", "text": "\"To perhaps better explain the \"\"why\"\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \"\"cheaper\"\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b35c5e8c84e7c3a09681cbaa08b71d2", "text": "Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic. If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a4af6d5d949050b38d46a09f9238888", "text": "And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fd5110b577f8fb73db726ebc20f4885", "text": "In the equity world, if a stock trades at 110 and is going to pay a dividend of 10 in a few days, an option expiring after the ex date would take the dividend into account and would trade as if the stock were trading at 100. (Negative) interest rates may also lead to a similar effect. In the commodity world the cost of carry needs to be taken into account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d91a0fb3d7176d422c9f62acef216adc", "text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81d3eb9c34cca8052b7e5312e0a28964", "text": "If that condition is permanent -- the stock will NEVER pay dividends and you will NEVER be able to sell it -- then yes, it sounds to me like this is a worthless piece of paper. If there is some possibility that the stock will pay dividends in the future, or that a market will exist to sell it, then you are making a long-term investment. It all depends on how likely it is that the situation will change. If the investment is small, maybe it's worth it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d31c84c12079548bbdae3a5a9c8cc01", "text": "Beta is an indication of a Stock's risk with respect to the market. For instance if a stock had a beta of 1 it means it is in tandem with the S&P 500. If it is more than 1, the stock is volatile. If it is less than 1, it implies market movement doesn't affect this stock much. Tech stocks and small cap stocks have high beta, utilities have low beta. (In general, not always). Hope this helps - I've tried to explain it in very simple terms!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443", "text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99a1c389d5216cd5cdf955b049a2fac6", "text": "A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;", "title": "" }, { "docid": "620902df8b6a4a4d24aa0def871f3a3f", "text": "The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "053fc9bcde5b00d378e822f216f521bb", "text": "Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899", "text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aed50438b0be52b9a0a266e82bb726e", "text": "people implicity agree to sell stocks when a company does bad But, remember, when you sell the stock of a company that, in your estimation, 'did bad', someone else had to buy; otherwise, there is no sale. The someone else who bought your shares evidently disagrees with your assessment. Did you sell because the company didn't earn a profit at all? Did it not earn a profit because it's in a dead-end business that is slowly but inevitably declining to zero? Something like Sears Holdings? Or did it not make a profit because it is in an emerging market that will possibly someday become hugely profitable? Something like Tesla, Inc.? Did you sell because the company made a profit, but it was lower than expected? Did they make a lower-than-expected profit because of lower sales? Why were the sales lower? Is the industry declining? Was the snow too heavy to send the construction crews out? Did the company make a big investment to build a new plant that will, in a few years, yield even higher sales and profits? What are the profits year-over-year? Increasing? Declining? Usually, investors are willing to pay a premium, that is more than expected, for a stock in a company with robust growth. As you can see, the mere fact that a company reported a profit is only one of many factors that determine the price of the shares in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74a6a11df8141bf6906945103103b30f", "text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f", "text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
af89a9a7f6618fe31a0702f5de3c1d0f	Do stocks give you more control over your finances than mutual funds?	[ { "docid": "fe940f93051087ade962c2d903cb6d8e", "text": "In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12dfd7a4c63537325923b5f65bab573a", "text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877", "text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1d233b4aaff599f1666c92147468e89e", "text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837", "text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fbab26ea90ed96ee595869a4742a7f8", "text": "diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb7489191787be6458bb24d48707cb7c", "text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2bfbfbabfc07ef43711447587646f45", "text": "A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d", "text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46b129bf40544b2543dc880dfa3a75c0", "text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a0b627c9da236657a47dd6eddb5215c", "text": "Ownership vs loanership. You can either own the factors of production, and so directly recieve the dividends of that production, or you can loan your wealth to someone who will use it to buy ownership in the factors of production, and give you a portion. Guess which one grows faster? One thing that was missed in this article, is that the political climate towards equity ownership has been very favorable since the 1980's, encouraging and simplifying the ownership of equity. The problem is that the middle class didn't take advantage of it, and now it's essentially too late.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9762f2e3e92994e473a00118bd94166", "text": "For me, spending my spare time on my career offers better return on investment (time) than stock investing, so I don't have the time to try to craft strategies about stock confusion anyway. It just serves as further proof to me that trying to time the market on short time scales is doomed unless you can account for all the irrationality of human behavior.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a", "text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b7485e54f14bda079a021ac233b0c0d", "text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66e0f00ac4ddfe238ea77d6e34291c88", "text": "Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b61c5a5c10181068fa87709c6c4ddf5", "text": "Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8678ed4f912e6edb926d4ad3c93d5ea7", "text": "Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93e6f4f2c4c147ccebf57367703b8672", "text": "Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation. In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically. The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
32d9a5d8876ca12bc83a0fc8bd33456c	What happens to options after a stock split?	[ { "docid": "3905d2c2904e354193891754dc85ccd1", "text": "It will be similar to what you have said -- the options price will adjust accordingly following a stock split - Here's a good reference on different scenarios - Splits, Mergers, Spinoffs & Bankruptcies also if you have time to read Characteristics & Risks of Standardized Options", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeebccfd8c6527653932d31d4e087b9a", "text": "Since you asked about Apple, and I happen to have two positions - This is what happened. I was long the $500, short the $600, in effect, betting Apple would recover from its drop from $700 down to $450 or so. Friday, my target was to hope that Apple remain above $600, but not really caring how much it went over. Now, post split, the magic number is $85.71. My account shows the adjusted option pricing, but doesn't yet show AAPL's new price.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "aae251f0f02378096008d1da385f7c25", "text": "No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e324197e86246532a484c7bfc6877f5", "text": "You are NOT responsible for liquidating the position. You will either end up retaining your 100 sh. after expiration, or they will be called away automatically. You don't have to do anything. Extending profitability can mean different things, but a major consideration is whether or not you want to hold the stock or not. If so, you can buy back the in-the-money call and sell another one at-the-money, or further out. There are lots of options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f5e2b5519a30ae098566977ca938227", "text": "Is my understanding correct? It's actually higher than that - he exercised options for 94,564 shares at $204.16 and sold them for $252.17 for a gain of about $4.5 Million. There's another transaction that's not in your screenshot where he sold the other 7,954 shares for another $2 Million. What do executive directors usually do with such profit? It's part of his compensation - it's anyone's guess what he decided to do with it. Is it understood that such trade profits should be re-invested back to the company? No - that is purely compensation for his position (I'm assuming the stock options were compensation rather then him buying options in the open market). There generally is no expectation that trading profits need to go back into the company. If the company wanted the profits reinvested they wouldn't have distributed the compensation in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d72a2287e6187ab29b5c58818cd1e8f", "text": "\"Alternatively you could exercise 12000 shares for $36000 and immediately sell 7200 shares to recover your exercise price. Then you use the remaining 4800 share to pay the exercise price of the remaining 8000 options. Both scenarios are equivalent but may have different fees associated, so it's worth checking the fine print. Tax wise: The above example is \"\"cash neutral before taxes\"\". The taxes associated with these transaction are substantial, so it's highly recommended to talk with a tax adviser. \"\"cash neutral after taxes\"\" depends highly on your specific tax situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df3b8a200267abcd62e8f9bb8332d003", "text": "Option prices consist of two parts: the intrinsic value (the difference between the strike and the current price of the stock) and a time premium, representing the probability that the stock will end up above the strike for a call (or below for a put). All else being equal, options decline in value as time passes, since there is less uncertainty about the expected value of the stock at expiration and thus the time premium is smaller. Theta is the measure of the change in value in one day. So for every day that passes, the calls you sold are going down by $64.71 (which is positive to you since you sold them at a higher value) and the calls you sold are going down by $49.04. So your position (a short spread) is gaining $15.67 each day (assuming no change in stock price or volatility). In reality, the stock price and volatility also change every day, and those are much stronger drivers of the value of your options. In your case, however, the options are deep out of the money, meaning it's very likely that they'll expire worthless, so all you have left is time premium, which is decaying as time goes on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df8af3e35f4d98e5f505d9e2009341ab", "text": "When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46", "text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8057d06cbcb766b7211eb29e90b52746", "text": "This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e745f9e72315642dbae7074b2fb9b73c", "text": "Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "630322d6c195ac675508693c89b9b106", "text": "\"Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power. For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company. Also, stock splits are not ordinarily \"\"triggered\"\". Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally. I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a \"\"poison pill\"\". In these arrangements, the \"\"pill\"\" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold. What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it. Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc995ec5e7c0691a5351985999c81cc2", "text": "For stock splits, let's say stock XYZ closed at 100 on February 5. Then on February 6, it undergoes a 2-for-1 split and closes the day at 51. In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 51 on Feb 6, but all of the closing prices for the previous days will be divided by 2. So for Feb 5, it will say the closing price was 50 instead of 100. For dividends, let's say stock ABC closed at 200 on December 18. Then on December 19, the stock increases in price by $2 but it pays out a $1 dividend. In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 200 on Dec 18 and 201 on Dec 19. Yahoo adjusts the closing price for Dec 19 to factor in the dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df3614b753ae87a1a270d904003756f7", "text": "\"Yahoo's \"\"Adj Close\"\" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the \"\"Adj Close\"\" is equal to the \"\"Close\"\" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the \"\"Adj Close\"\" equals the \"\"Close\"\" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b", "text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81fc4819252bbfa4014d3241c01a80a7", "text": "You could hold a long position in some company XXXX and then short your own shares (assuming your broker will let you do that). The dividend that would have gone to you would then go to whoever is holding the shares you short sold. You just don't get a dividend. If you're going to short in a smart way... do it on a stock you otherwise believe in, but use it to minimize the pull-backs on the way up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa904190368b7911e7240b48486f6ab7", "text": "I know that in the case of cash dividends I will get the dividend as long as I bought the stock before the ex-date but what happens in the case of an stock dividend? This is same as cash dividends. You would receive the additional stock.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8d8752d63ca34519072ee1c4b985899f	How much is one “lot” of EUR/USD?	[ { "docid": "de34a60f2070cab378b59871fc4ee887", "text": "\"A lot (sometimes called a round lot) always refers to the quantity of physical good that you're getting, like a carton of eggs or a barrel of oil. The tricky thing in the case of forex is that the physical good also happens to be a currency. A spot currency product trades in the denomination on the right-hand side (RHS) of the product name. So if you're buying EUR/USD you are paying USD currency to get EUR \"\"units\"\", and if you're selling EUR/USD you are receiving USD by giving away EUR \"\"units\"\". The EUR is the \"\"physical good\"\" in this case. The way I remember it is to think of all products (not just currencies) as trading pairs. So AAPL in my mind is AAPL/USD. When I buy AAPL/USD I am paying USD to get AAPL units. When I sell AAPL/USD I am receiving USD by giving away AAPL units. The thing on the left is the physical good (even if it happens to be money) that you are exchanging, and the thing on the right is the money that you are exchanging. So, when I buy a lot of AAPL, I am buying 100 shares at their current price in dollars. Similarly, when I buy a lot of EUR/USD, I am buying 100K Euros at their current price in dollars.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "18d75b8742bef1ec9535145e323209d9", "text": "\"If the \"\"crash\"\" you worry about is a dissolution of the euro, then the main thing you should concern yourself with is liquidity. For that, purchase the most highly liquid gold ETF or futures contract, whichever is more appropriate for the total amount of money involved. Any other way and you will lose a significant chunk of your assets to transaction costs. If, on the other hand, the \"\"crash\"\" you were concerned about were the total collapse of the world economy, and people around the world abandon all paper currencies and resort to barter as a method of trade, then I can see buying several small pieces being a rational strategy, although then I would also question whether you were a sane individual.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04c94c58cc1e469ef411466c4daa4f9", "text": "\"The €100'000 limit is per bank, where \"\"bank\"\" is defined as a financial institution with a banking license from one of the ECB members. \"\"WeltSparen\"\", is operated by the MHB-Bank which is a German bank, recognized by the Bundesbank. That means your money is initially guaranteed by the Bundesbank. When it's moved to the final saving account, you'll be saving at other banks, which are identified in the individual offerings. This can be an effective technique to split capitals in excess of €100.000. You should obviously look for banks that are backed by ECB member banks, but keep in mind what happened to Iceland: the national banks can also fail. In particular, the Bank of Italy at the moment is looking a bit shaky because Monte dei Paschi di Siena is currently failing and will require a bail-out. There's no official back-up for failing national banks within the ECB system.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e651432466f0d37eb0787dcba0048ec2", "text": "There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d81ccba684d73402c54dbdbd18286fb3", "text": "Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7402ad5fe06144d975d78da88844f93d", "text": "If you are a Russian citizen a much easier and common solution would be a USD or EUR withdrawal from your Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. You will need to create a Webmoney account (www.webmoney.ru), get a primary certificate in your local Webmoney office in Russia (The list is available at the website), create WMZ (for USD) and WME (for EURO) accounts in Webmoney (done online). Then you can easily top up your Webmoney WMR (Rubles) account (created automatically) with Rubles, convert the sum into USD (According to the Webmoney rate, which is only slightly different from the official central bank rate) and then withdraw the money from your USD Webmoney account to your Cyprus bank account. The money will be transfered to your Cyprus bank account from UK Webmoney dealer. The transaction description would say that this sum is transfered according to the contract of sale of securities. This method prevents any Russian regulatory authorities from seeing your transactions. And the best thig in Webmoney is that they have stable exchange rates and they use classic currencies such as USD, RUR, EUR, etc. Webmoney also has WMG accounts (Gold) and WMX accounts (Bitcoin). Non-Russian residents can also open a Webmoney accounts. You can get one even in Cyprus, by the way:)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6fa45e3c91b7b5118276c42470a65ba", "text": "I shorted at 1.35 recently, I was short from 1.39 and closed at 1.33 There are two collapse scenarios scenarios: 1. Euro collapse all countries revert (very unlikely) eur/usd = 0 2. Euro zone kicks out the PIIGS, eurusd =1.5, the currency now has only the strong countries in it which will reduce all of the eurozone risk. Scenario two will kill you if you are short. Short the currency and leverage it up (in fx you can usually get 50:1 leverage).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bcf037ef9312226087b3bd30dba8e63", "text": "There is a service TransferWise through which you can send money from UK banks to EUR bank accounts in the EU for a 1 GBP fee (much cheaper then about 25 GBP for a SWIFT transfer). You send them a UK national GBP transfer to their UK HSBC account, and they send the equivalent amount in EUR from their Irish EUR bank account to your EUR account - for example in Germany. What is best, is that they use bare mid-market ForEx exchange rates, without any markup on the GBP to EUR exchange rate, which is usually in the range of 2% to 5% in banks, so you don't lose anything on the exchange rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44c1a694da5c07c973e7e50b0180cf2c", "text": "According to your post, you bought seven shares of VBR at $119.28 each on August 23rd. You paid €711,35. Now, on August 25th, VBR is worth $120.83. So you have But you want to know what you have in EUR, not USD. So if I ask Google how much $845.81 is in EUR, it says €708,89. That's even lower than what you're seeing. It looks like USD has fallen in value relative to EUR. So while the stock price has increased in dollar terms, it has fallen in euro terms. As a result, the value that you would get in euros if you sold the stock has fallen from the price that you paid. Another way of thinking about this is that your price per share was €101,72 and is now €101,33. That's actually a small drop. When you buy and sell in a different currency that you don't actually want, you add the currency risk to your normal risk. Maybe that's what you want to do. Or maybe you would be better off sticking to euro-denominated investments. Usually you'd do dollar-denominated investments if some of your spending was in dollars. Then if the dollar goes up relative to the euro, your investment goes up with it. So you can cash out and make your purchases in dollars without adding extra money. If you make all your purchases in euros, I would normally recommend that you stick to euro-denominated investments. The underlying asset might be in the US, but your fund could still be in Europe and list in euros. That's not to say that you can't buy dollar-denominated investments with euros. Clearly you can. It's just that it adds currency risk to the other risks of the investment. Unless you deliberately want to bet that USD will rise relative to EUR, you might not want to do that. Note that USD may rise over the weekend and put you back in the black. For that matter, even if USD continues to fall relative to the EUR, the security might rise more than that. I have no opinion on the value of VBR. I don't actually know what that is, as it doesn't matter for the points I was making. I'm not saying to sell it immediately. I'm saying that you might prefer euro-denominated investments when you buy in the future. Again, unless you are taking this particular risk deliberately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3e89d3c295686a29498edd78227a5181", "text": "Take a look at Everbank. They offer CDs and Money Market Accounts denominated in Euros for US residents. https://www.everbank.com/personal/foreign-currencies.aspx", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdacd159176e301372a26a6f8d7cb14d", "text": "\"No, this is not solid advice. It's a prediction with very little factual basis, since US interest rates are kept just as low and debt levels are just as high as in the Eurozone. The USD may rise or fall against the EUR, stay the same or move back and forth. Nobody can say with any certainty. However, it is not nearly as risky as \"\"normal forex speculation\"\", since that is usually very short term and highly leveraged. You're unlikely to lose more than 20-30% of your capital by just buying and holding USD. Of course, the potential gains are also limited.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef34a2671c3caedeec6861083663c476", "text": "The Euro is currently at 1.24. It's been lower than that before. Why do you think there is still so much money behind it? I'm not trying to push back, but do you know something that the market doesn't in terms of a collapse? Also, if you are so positive, are you heavily shorting the euro? I by no means am convinced that the euro was a good idea. But I am convinced that they will do whatever they can to keep it alive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b2553ca379034c58a9b65547529cb50", "text": "\"Amount is the closest single word. \"\"Amount in dollars\"\" would be the easiest way to specify information you are requesting. \"\"Amount and currency\"\" if you ware in an area using multiple currencies. An accountant might be able to give you a more technical term, but it would be accountancy jargon. Amount due, credit amount, debit amount, amount deposited, amount credited, amount withdrawn, or amount included. If you're writing instructions and want to specify that the person following the instructions needs to indicate the currency, you'll probably have to simply state that requirement. Based on US centric thinking, inside the US, money is dollars, dollars is money. For US citizens outside the country, we would always tack on the currency. 100 dollars, or 100 Euro. There is a segment of Americans who do not understand geography, and that other countries exist, and that they use different currencies, might not realize that other countries have currencies named dollars, and that USD means US Dollars. So for U.S. citizens, be specific and clear. Bottom line, if this is written for US residents, and they need to specify the currency, you need to explicitly require them to \"\"List the amount and currency.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e32b8427fcb28a539183c5de85b9b7f", "text": "Sorry, but it doesn't make sense to convert to USD when you can find the actual price of gas easily. Maybe I should have just stuck with EU prices since the article was EU-based. 1,15/L inflated by 1% every year ends up at 1,27/L after 10 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccef86861b5918e8ad02925f6b4ea9c4", "text": "Is there not some central service that tracks current currency rates that banks can use to get currency data? Sure. But this doesn't matter. All the central service can tell you is how much the rate was historically. But the banks/PayPal don't care about the historical value. They want to know the price that they'll pay when they get around to switching, not the last price before the switch. Beyond that, there is a transaction cost to switching. They have to pay the clearinghouse for managing the transaction. The banks can choose to act as a clearinghouse, but that increases their risk. If the bank has a large balance of US dollars but dollars are falling, then they end up eating that cost. They'll only take that risk if they think that they'll make more money that way. And in the end, they may have to go on the currency market anyway. If a European bank runs out of US dollars, they have to buy them on the open market. Or a US bank might run out of Euros. Or Yen. Etc. Another problem is that many of the currency transactions are small, but the overhead is fixed. If the bank has to pay $5 for every currency transaction, they won't even break even charging 3% on a $100 transaction. So they delay the actual transaction so that they can make more than one at a time. But then they have the risk that the currency value might change in the meantime. If they credit you with $97 in your account ($100 minus the 3% fee) but the price actually drops from $100 to $99, they're out the $1. They could do it the other way as well. You ask for a $100 transaction. They perform a $1000 transaction, of which they give you $97. Now they have $898 ($1000 minus the $5 they paid for the transaction plus the $3 they charged you for the transaction). If there's a 1% drop, they're out $10.98 ($8.98 in currency loss plus a net $2 in fees). This is why banks have money market accounts. So they have someone to manage these problems working twenty-four hours a day. But then they have to pay interest on those accounts, further eating into their profits. Along with paying a staff to monitor the currency markets and things that may affect them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d07420bb79af890119995e24bcf52cb", "text": "It depends on your bank and the details in the agreement, but typically, interest is calculated daily. So if you borrow 1000 EUR for 1 day, you pay 15% * 1000 EUR * 1/360 = 42 Cent (41.666667 cent to be exact). You can simply multiply these 42 cent up with the number of days you plan and the number of 1000s EUR. Note that weekend days count too, even if you cannot pay them back on the weekend. The exact value will be very slightly different, as the interest is added monthly to the principal, and there is compound interest on the interest. Banks also often consider all months 30 days long for interest calculations.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d3a702304429eaf66d8aa177ca74707c	Algorithmic trading in linux using python	[ { "docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1", "text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7503085ce49c8242851ea5cf345ffa1f", "text": "\"You can have a look at betabrokers. It's an simulated stock trading platform which is entirely email-based. You start with 10 000$ and you make transactions with commands in the subject line of the email (e.g. \"\"buy 250$ AAPL\"\" or \"\"cover 20 shares of AAPL\"\"). It should be straightforward to add an email interface to your python script.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fd2d162f642ff8472e70dd04df379bd", "text": "I don't think any open source trading project is going to offer trial or demo accounts. In fact, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Are you looking for some example data sets so you can see how your algorithm would perform historically? If you contact whatever specific brokers that you'd like to interface with, they can provide things like connection tests, etc., but no one is going to let you do live trades on a trial or demo basis. For more information about setting this sort of thing up at home, here's a good link: < http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~abrock/algotrading/index.html >. It's not Python specific, but should give you a good idea of what to do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97a05c3d030d2e21517b4fe44e809822", "text": "In Japan, there's a competition well-lasting since 2004 or so where you can run your own software agent in a virtual market. Market data is updated from the real world everyday. And if your agent proves good, the organizer puts it into the real market. The language is unfortunately limited to Java only to my knowledge. OS is not limited since your agent is supposed to run on the organizer's environment. English might not be well supported on their web site...", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "53bb45d891a7bec4bad44ba09a8080bb", "text": "\"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6a30f5616e94418f406aebfface37b", "text": "Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419ccafaa188ccb2a84201f32683508e", "text": "Algo traders/quants/market backtesters/coders/et al. I am looking to backtest basic things like the correlation of P/E, EV/EBITDA, etc. to market performance. I know a little R and Python. What is the easiest way to learn to backtest this sort of stuff? I want to eventually get into algo trading sort of stuff. I'd greatly appreciate it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7be31f2302c1db1590563be8a8793d7a", "text": "\"Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis. It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to. Basically what \"\"HFTs\"\" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else. Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor. So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices. Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq. So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7. Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an \"\"evil HFT\"\" instead of a \"\"trustworthy bank.\"\" But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ccda6b515f09fe101f3d7e6ccb0150d", "text": "You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e78a069d54bc15c4fb166fce684c51a7", "text": "\"The quantity are going to get booty raped when the cycle turns. The unprecedented bull run has lead to their models being skewed which is bad news for the quants who are the \"\"programmer funds\"\" you reference. I'm just an analyst and I use python regularly for my job, but I don't think AI can replace expertise.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "557de771f5d36064911e7a767f197b57", "text": "\"In US public stock markets there is no difference between the actions individual retail traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take and the actions institutional/corporate traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take. The only difference is the cost of those actions. For example, if you become a Registered Market Maker on, say, the BATS stock exchange, you'll get some amazing rebates and reduced transaction prices; however, in order to qualify for Registered Market Maker status you have to maintain constant orders in the book for hundreds of equities at significant volumes. An individual retail trader is certainly permitted to do that, but it's probably too expensive. Algorithmic trading is not the same as automated trading (algorithmic trading can be non-automated, and automated trading can be non-algorithmic), and both can be anywhere from low- to high-frequency. A low-frequency automated strategy is essentially indistinguishable from a person clicking their mouse several times per day, so: no, from a legal or regulatory perspective there is no special procedure an individual retail trader has to follow before s/he can automate a trading strategy. (Your broker, on the other hand, may have all sorts of hoops for you to jump through in order to use their automation platform.) Last (but certainly not least) you will almost certainly lose money hand over fist attempting bid-ask scalping as an individual retail trader, whether your approach is algorithmic or not, automated or not. Why? Because the only way to succeed at bid-ask scalping is to (a) always be at/near the front of the queue when a price change occurs in your favor, and (b) always cancel your resting orders before they are executed when a price change occurs against you. Unless your algorithms are smarter than every other algorithm in the industry, an individual retail trader operating through a broker's trading platform cannot react quickly enough to succeed at either of those. You would have to eschew the broker and buy direct market access to even have a chance, and that's the point at which you're no longer a retail trader. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5acafc129ddd9f53bcfcca2fc88678d", "text": "If you would like to use linux I suggest you to use KMyMoney http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/ It is based on gnucash but it is easier to use IMO", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0701647bcc7ed2194b069134c6b73b93", "text": "Algorithmic trading essentially banks on the fact that a price will fluctuate in tiny amounts over short periods of time, meaning the volatility is high in that given time frame. As the time frame increases the efficiency of algorithmic trading decreases and proper investment strategies such as due diligence, stock screening, and technical analysis become the more efficient methods. Algorithms become less effective as the time frame increases due to the smoothing effect of volatility over time. Writing an algorithm that could predict future long-term prices would be an impossible feat because as the time frame is scaled up there are far less price fluctuations and trends (volatility smooths out) and so there is little to no benchmark for the formulas. An algorithm simply wouldn't make sense for a long-term position. A computer can't predict, say, the next quarter, an ousted CEO, a buyout, or anything else that could effect the price of the security, never mind the psychology behind it all. Vice versa, researching a company's fundamentals just to bank on a 0.25% daily swing would not be efficient. Tax advantages or not, it is the most efficient methods that are preferred for a given time-scale of trading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a75c5ba3947303b0d87d0aa43ae4ec1", "text": "just start on quantopian. you wont know what you are doing. take someones algorithm, break it. figure out why its broken, fix it. figure out why it works. brainstorm ideas. code them. bugfix. realize you dont know enough. google search. . . profit thats what I did.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64ed690f3374e934191b272f92f7ec65", "text": "\"Yes we lose some client business to algos - specifically the DMA (direct market access) side of things. I haven't seen much HFT impact on what I do. I see the movement towards algos/automated trading and DMA over the next 5-10 years, and block traders like me going extinct eventually. But this all assumes liquidity, which is not there in the product I trade. So you still need a dealer who knows where the blocks \"\"live\"\". You want to buy 5% of that issue? okay good-luck trying to do that in the market. No algo will help you do that without moving the market against you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4dff35891ae13eeff3533f54e752a6d", "text": "R/stockmarket is probably the best. When I have some free time I can test that strategy back as long as you would like in quantstrat, although the only problem with testing futures is joining the consolidated contracts, however I can test it with SPY as SPY returns and ES_F track very closely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f", "text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "168531c9e0b56d3b16c6ef7be2d7f128", "text": "Here's a sneak peek of [/r/algotrading](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading) using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \\#1: [Python for Algorithmic Trading and Investing tutorial series](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/5selh0/python_for_algorithmic_trading_and_investing/) \\#2: [Stop calling it HFT](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/59syla/stop_calling_it_hft/) \\#3: [Introduction to Python for Econometrics, Statistics and Data Analysis](https://www.kevinsheppard.com/images/0/09/Python_introduction.pdf) \| [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/5kthsv/introduction_to_python_for_econometrics/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^\| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^\| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^\| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^\| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47cea5f4c2bd6ef611d52e55975e7338", "text": "I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
677a3b5c63cdc13df189326818b481f6	Understanding the symbols next to the Ticker	[ { "docid": "2a123a5257336278656f89e22c3cdeb3", "text": "\"I don't understand what the D, to the right of APPLE INC, means. This means the graph below is for the \"\"D\"\". There is selection at top and you can change this to Minutes [5,20,60,etc], Day, Week [W], Month [M] I'm not understanding how it can say BATS when in actuality AAPL is listed on the NASDAQ. Do all exchanges have info on every stock even from other exchanges and just give them to end-users at a delayed rate? BATS is an exchange. A stock can be listed on multiple exchange. I am not sure if AAPL is also listed on BATS. However looks like BATS has agreement with major stock exchanges to trade their data and supplies this to trading.com\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c6c8152487eb17db27adc8285fd5fa7", "text": "BATS here means your data feed is coming from BATS only. You're not seeing up to date prices from NASDAQ, NYSE or any other of the ECNs. For a liquid equity like AAPL, BATS prices are typically up to date but for a less liquid listing, you wouldn't always see the NBBO. To get live feeds from every ECN, you have to pay. BATS is offering this information freely and that's why you're seeing it now. AAPL is listed on NASDAQ but you can trade pretty much everything on BATS, just like on other ECNs and exchanges.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a9d3a69f8a6b441e6dc66b013eb677a9", "text": "id like to start by saying youre still doing this yourself, and i dont actually have all the info required anyway, dont send it but >[3] Descriptive Statistical Measures: Provide a thorough discussion of the meaning and interpretation of the four descriptive >statistical measures required in your analysis: (1) Arithmetic Mean, (2) Variance, (3) Standard Deviation and (4) Coefficient of >Variation. For example, how are these measures related to each other? In order to develop this discussion, you may want to >consult chapters 2 and 3 of your textbook. This topic is an important part of your report. can be easily interpreted, im guessing the mean is simply just the observed (and then projected stock price for future models) the standard deviation determines the interval in which the stock price fluctuates. so you have like a curve, and then on this curve theirs a bunch of normal distributions modeling the variance of the price plotted against the month also the coefficient of variation is just r^2 so just read up on that and relate it to the meaning of it to the numbers you have actually my stats are pretty rusty so make sure you really check into these things but otherwise the formulas for part 4 is simple too. you can compare means of a certain month using certain equations, but there are different ones for certain situations you can test for significance by comparing the differences of the means and if its outside of your alpha level then it probably means your company is significantly different from the SP index. (take mu of SP - mu of callaway) you can also find more info on interpreting the two different coefficients your given if you look up comparing means of linear regression models or something", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52fb421a3486c497b33316eea6c19866", "text": "There is no simple way to convert an ISIN into a stock ticker symbol. The only way to even attempt to do so is to map the ISIN to a CUSIP or SEDOL or other national identifier and then map that identifier to a stock ticker symbol.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7077d59b515eba495c5ceab28cfb7d7b", "text": "I believe it’s because the old ticker machines only had 32 symbols making each symbol (1/32) a tick. (Back in the London Stock / Debt exchange in the 18th century) . The first ever government bond was issued by the Bank of England in 1693 to raise money to fund a war against France", "title": "" }, { "docid": "725951659c06b70d8fe02aca12320d51", "text": "I use 10-K and 10-Qs to understand to read the disclosed risk factors related to a business. Sometimes they are very comical. But when you see that risk factor materializing you can understand how it will effect the company. For example, one microlending company's risk factor stated that if Elizabeth Warren becomes head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau we will have a hard time... so we are expanding in Mexico and taking our politically unfavorable lending practices there. I like seeing how many authorized shares there are or if there are plans to issue more. An example was where I heard from former employees of a company how gullible the other employees at that company were and how they all thought they were going to get rich or were being told so by upper management. Poor/Quirky/Questionable/Misleading management is one of my favorite things to look for in a company so I started digging into their SEC filings and saw that they were going to do a reverse split which would make the share prices trade higher (while experiencing no change in market cap), but then digging further I saw that they were only changing the already issued shares, but keeping the authorized shares at the much larger amount of shares, and that they planned to do financing by issuing more of the authorized shares. I exclaimed that this would mean the share prices would drop by 90%-99% after the reverse split and you mean to tell me that nobody realizes this (employees or the broad market). I was almost tempted to stand outside their office and ask employees if I could borrow their shares to short, because there wasn't enough liquidity on the stock market! This was almost the perfect short but it wasn't liquid or have any options so not perfect after all. It traded from $20 after the reverse split to $1.27 I like understanding how much debt a company is in and the structure of that debt, like if a loan shark has large payments coming up soon. This is generally what I use those particular forms for. But they contain a lot of information A lot of companies are able to act they way they do because people do not read.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ac8f746817bd8f90825805f94f71d74", "text": "William %R is a momentum indicator used for measuring overbought and oversold levels, it is not used to predict the price of a stock. In fact, William %R, like all momentum indicators, is a lagging indicator - meaning the indicator level changes as the price of the stock changes. It ranges from 0 to -100. Usually when a reading is less than -80 the stock can be considered to be oversold, and when the reading is above -20 the stock can be considered overbought. When viewed together with the price chart, this can help provide a trader with entry and exit points into and out of a trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf4513d6e76ed2e63e58c4b9760adbe", "text": "On NASDAQ the ^ is used to denote other securities and / to denote warrents for the underlying company. Yahoo maybe using some other designators for same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c139204ef8db6cebd5386f5e6f653212", "text": "You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7899255b9d21c5e86212fdc9fb628c00", "text": "\"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you. The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model at the future point discounted back to the present. The Gordon growth model uses a \"\"next period\"\" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock. Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "356a2e623de8568a36800b87f23611e0", "text": "\"There may well be several such graphs, I expect googling will turn them up; but the definition of risk is actually quite important here. My definition of risk might not be quite the same as yours, so the relative risk factors would be different. For example: in general, stocks are more risky than bonds. But owning common shares in a blue-chip company might well be less risky than owning bonds from a company teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and no single risk number can really capture that. Another example: while I can put all my money in short-term deposits, and it is pretty \"\"safe\"\", if it grows at 1% so that my investment portfolio cannot fund my retirement, then I have a risk that I will run out of money before I shuffle off this mortal coil. How to capture that \"\"risk\"\" in a single number? So you will need to better define your parameters before you can prepare a visual aid. Good Luck\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d6a6df4590e71d80a5d36a08e59f60c", "text": "\"Each candlestick in a candlestick chart represents the open, close, high and low for a period of time. If you are looking at a daily chart it represents the open price, close price, high price and low price for that day. If you are looking at an hourly chart, then a single candlestick represents the open, close, high and low prices for an hour. If looking at a weekly chart, then a single candlestick will represent the opening price on Monday morning, the closing price on Friday afternoon, and the highest and lowest price for that week. The diagram below represents the two main types of candle sticks. When the price closes higher than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bullish candle and the main body is usually represented in green. When the price closes lower than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bearish candle and the main body is usually represented in red. In a bullish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the low of the period and close near the top of the period, it represents a very bullish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when good news is released to the market and most market participants want to buy the shares driving prices higher during the period. An example of a bullish candle with a small real body and a large upper shadow or wick could be when market participants start buying early during the period, then some negative news comes out or prices reach a major resistance level, then prices drop from their highs but still close higher than the open. The large upper shadow represents some indecision in prices moving higher. In a bearish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the high of the period and close near the low of the period, it represents a very bearish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when bad news is released to the market and most market participants want to sell the shares driving prices lower during the period. An example of a bearish candle with a small real body and a large lower shadow or wick could be when market participants start selling early during the period, then some positive news comes out or prices reach a major support level, then prices move up from their lows but still close lower than the open. The large lower shadow represents some indecision in prices moving lower. These are just some examples of what can be derived from looking at candlestick charts. There are plenty more and too much to include in this answer. Another type of candle is the Doji, represented in the diagram below. The Doji Candle represents indecision in the market. Prices open then move up to the high of the period then start falling past the open before reversing again and closing either at the open or very close to the open. The market participants can't decide whether the price should move up or down, so prices end up closing very close to where they opened. A doji Candle close to a market high or low could represent a turning point in the short term trend and could mean that over the next period or two prices could reverse and go in the opposite direction. There are many more definitions for candlestick charts, and I would recommend an introductory book on candlestick charting, like one from the \"\"Dummies\"\" series. The main things to keep in mind as a beginner it that a strong bullish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further price movement upwards, a strong bearish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further movement downwards, and any candle with large shadows could represent indecision and a reversal from the direction of the large shadow.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99e624fff0e94350a2a86d1a88cc5782", "text": "\"Support and resistance points indicate price levels where there have been a large amount of trading activity, usually from institutions, that tend to stabilize the price of a stock. Support is a temporary FLOOR, where people have been buying in large quantities. That means there's a good chance that the stock won't go below this level in the near term. (But if it does, watch out.) Resistance is a temporary CEILING where people have been selling. When the stock price hits this level, people tend to sell, and push it back down. Until there are \"\"no more\"\" sellers at this level. Then the price could skyrocket if there is enough buying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa2aae462316eb64f23cb448a361783e", "text": "I found the answer. It was the Stock Ticker that I was looking for. So, if I understand correctly the price at certain moment is the price of the latest sale and can be used to get a global picture of what certain stock is worth at that certain instant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "105d56c81f6e2fbc365e6571b8b8d301", "text": "you could try [FRED](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=HO7), or maybe try the CME and ICE's websites for some decent data.. haven't looked just suggestions - pretty sure the symbol for the Libor futures is EM, you could approximate from that so long as it's not a doctoral thesis", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c23a61f572194b420b110c7a2af7c62", "text": "\"This is called \"\"change\"\" or \"\"movement\"\" - the change (in points or percentage) from the last closing value. You can read more about the ticker tape on Investopedia, the format you're referring to comes from there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "822df86dfe0d05b9c15f41148d7dbda2", "text": "\"Because they track an index. Edited: The definition of the word in this case meaning \"\"something used or serving to point out; a sign, token, or indication\"\" from Meaning #3 I presume therefore you are asking what an index is? There are many variations of what makes up an Index but in short it is a representation of some part of a market. An extremely simplistic calculation would be to take a basket of stocks, and sum their prices. If one stock moves up a dollar, and one moves down a dollar, the index has effectively not changed, as it is presumed that the loss in one is offset by the gain in the other.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
abaf93bd08ab45b96d7f5439d0c59760	Tools to evaluate REITs	[ { "docid": "076724614177d21d3c98defd53abe1b4", "text": "REIT's are a different beast than your normal corporate stock (such as $AAPL). Here is a good article to get you started. From there you can do some more research into what you think you will need to truly evaluate an REIT. How To Assess A Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Excerpt: When evaluating REITs, you will get a clearer picture by looking at funds from operations (FFO) rather than looking at net income. If you are seriously considering the investment, try to calculate adjusted funds from operations (AFFO), which deducts the likely expenditures necessary to maintain the real estate portfolio. AFFO is also a good measure of the REIT's dividend-paying capacity. Finally, the ratio price-to-AFFO and the AFFO yield (AFFO/price) are tools for analyzing an REIT: look for a reasonable multiple combined with good prospects for growth in the underlying AFFO. Good luck!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ba7bf795e580e31b8c830138b431da26", "text": "The IRR is the Discount Rate r* that makes Net Present Value NPV(r)==0. What this boils down to is two ways of making the same kind of profitability calculation. You can choose a project with NPV(10%)>0, or you can choose based on IRR>10%, and the idea is you get to the same set of projects. That's if everything is well behaved mathematically. But that's not the end of this story of finance, math, and alphabet soup. For investments that have multiple positive and negative cash flows, finding that r becomes solving for the roots of a polynomial in r, so that there can be multiple roots. Usually people use the lowest positive root but really it only makes sense for projects where NPV(r)>0 for r<r and NPV(r)<0 for r>r. To try to help with your understanding, you can evaluate a real estate project with r=10%, find the sum future discounted cash flows, which is the NPV, and do the project if NPV>0. Or, you can take the future cash flows of a project, find the NPV as a function of the rate r, and find r where NPV(r)==0. That r is the IRR. If IRR=r>10% and the NPV function is well behaved as above, you can also do the project. When we don't have to worry about multiple roots, the preceding two paragraphs will select the same identical sets of projects as meeting the 10% return requirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19cf023e3f5de9b66e48a1b8b43787c0", "text": "There are the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices. I believe the reports used to create them are released to the public. This could be a good place to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbb9c1dab71e1a4e1576c568d093714b", "text": "Similarly to buying property on your own, REITs cannot get to good returns without leveraging. If you buy an investment property 100% cash only - chances are that 10% ROI is a very very optimistic scenario. If you use leveraging (i.e.: take out a mortgage) - you're susceptible to interest rate changes. REITs invest in properties all around all the time. They invest in mortgages themselves as well (In the US, that's the only security REITs can hold without being disqualified). You can't expect all that to be cash-only, there have to be loans and financing involved. When rates go up - financing costs go up. That brings net income down. Simple math. In the US, there's an additional benefit to investing in REIT vs directly holding real estate: taxes. REITs pay dividends, which have preferential (if qualified) taxation. You'll pay capital gains taxes on the dividends if you hold the fund long enough. If you own a rental property directly, your income after all the expenses is taxed at ordinary rates, which would usually be higher. Also, as you mentioned, you can use them as margin, and they're much much more liquid than holding real estate directly. Not to mention you don't need to deal with tenants or periods where you don't have any, or if local real-estate market tanks (while REITs are usually quite diversified in kinds of real estate they hold and areas). On the other hand, if you own real estate, you can leverage it at lower rates than margin (with HELOCs etc), and it provides some safety net in case of a stock market crash (which REITs are somewhat susceptible to). You can also live in your property, if needed, which is something that's hard to do with REITs....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "227085867cf45b9715b131058918dc42", "text": "Thank you very much for this thoughtful response. In my opinion the judges care more about the why behind your valuation rather than a how. Anyone can use a formula, but it takes so much more to understand why to use the formula. Personally, the 'why' is going to be the toughest part for me understand and wrap my head around. Once again thank you for the advice and the tip.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aec2e5d1480a09c5e8c8671d32c6e8d", "text": "\"A bit strange but okay. The way I would think about this is again that you need to determine for what purpose you're computing this, in much the same way you would if you were to build out the model. The IPO valuation is not going to be relevant to the accretion/dilution analysis unless you're trying to determine whether the transaction was net accretive at exit. But that's a weird analysis to do. For longer holding periods like that you're more likely to look at IRR, not EPS. EPS is something investors look at over the short to medium term to get a sense of whether the company is making good acquisition decisions. And to do that short-to-medium term analysis, they look at earnings. Damodaran would say this is a shitty way of looking at things and that you should probably be looking at some measure of ROIC instead, and I tend to agree, but I don't get paid to think like an investor, I get paid to sell shit to them (if only in indirect fashion). The short answer to your question is that no, you should not incorporate what you are calling liquidation value when determining accretion/dilution, but only because the market typically computes accretion/dilution on a 3-year basis tops. I've never put together a book or seen a press release in my admittedly short time in finance that says \"\"the transaction is estimated to be X% accretive within 4 years\"\" - that just seems like an absurd timeline. Final point is just that from an accounting perspective, a gain on a sale of an asset is not going to get booked in either EBITDA or OCF, so just mechanically there's no way for the IPO value to flow into your accretion/dilution analysis there, even if you are looking at EBITDA/shares. You could figure the gain on sale into some kind of adjusted EBITDA/shares version of EPS, but this is neither something I've ever seen nor something that really makes sense in the context of using EPS as a standardized metric across the market. Typically we take OUT non-recurring shit in EPS, we don't add it in. Adding something like this in would be much more appropriate to measuring the success of an acquisition/investing vehicle like a private equity fund, not a standalone operating company that reports operational earnings in addition to cash flow from investing. And as I suggest above, that's an analysis for which the IRR metric is more ideally situated. And just a semantic thing - we typically wouldn't call the exit value a \"\"liquidation value\"\". That term is usually reserved for dissolution of a corporate entity and selling off its physical or intangible assets in piecemeal fashion (i.e. not accounting for operational synergies across the business). IPO value is actually just going to be a measure of market value of equity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83ee753bf0e789e557df6966e4cfcbc9", "text": "You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed. They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends). For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however, include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit from double taxation treaties.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baef691dc7ff5863b8a6717410737bea", "text": "\"While you want it to grow faster than inflation, there are things like I-bonds that can carry some inflation protection with them for an idea that may make sense for part of this. There are now some more details and I'd think this seems alright initially though I would suggest considering having some kind of on-going plan to handle periodically seeing how much more to invest here and what kind of taxes will this generate for you as taxable accounts can carry a mix of dividends, interest and capital gains that you may have to pay even though you didn't see the gain yourself. Keep in mind that if you do go with a big-name investment bank, this could well add more fees as well as other stuff. Lehman Brothers was a big name investment bank once upon a time and they went broke. While you may want to be hands-off, I'd still suggest having some kind of timeline for how often are your investments to be reviewed and things re-allocated. Each quarter, semi-annually, or annual? There isn't so much a right or wrong answer here as much as I'd point out that one should be aware of the trade-offs in each case. If you take annual and wonder each week how it is doing, then something a bit more frequent may make sense. On the other hand, some people may well \"\"set it and forget it\"\" which can work as long as there is something to know about where to go if something does go broke. As these are managed investments, the SIPC check I'd make may not hold though this would be the equivalent of FDIC for deposits when dealing with securities. The REIT can be useful for diversification, sure. You do realize that there may be some interesting taxes for you in the next few years given the nature of a REIT investment, right? The \"\"Return of Capital\"\" that a REIT may pass through as a REIT to maintain its tax status must distribute 90% of its net income each year that can be quite a off shoot of funds. Where would those proceeds be invested? This isn't mentioned in your post and thus I'm curious as if the REIT passes out a dividend yield of say 5% then this is $2,000/year that could go somewhere.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0e0b365c44284f072a16b31557e837f", "text": "I thought it was such a useful suggestion that I went ahead and created them. I'm sure you're not the only one who could derive some benefit from them, I know I will. http://www.investy.com/tools When I have some additional time, I will add the option for grace-periods, but for now I wanted to get them up so you could use the calculations as-is from the article. Enjoy. (Disclosure: I'm the founder of the site they are hosted on and I wrote the code for the calculators)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd4f52a70a3ab8bb2cfc60c534f5106", "text": "Also keep in mind that most REITs have high dividend yields. If you short, you are responsible for payment of the dividend to the party you are borrowing the shares from. This can add costs to your position over time. Short REITS for a long time period is not necessarily an optimal strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c504887992c7acc59ad707ecd200e98", "text": "I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13eebc93749f883f4ed2b7a6c5550e65", "text": "If the cash flow information is complete, the valuation can be determined with relative accuracy and precision. Assuming the monthly rent is correct, the annual revenue is $1,600 per year, $250/mo * 12 months - $1,400/year in taxes. Real estate is best valued as a perpetuity where P is the price, i is the income, and r is the rate of interest. Theoreticians would suggest that the best available rate of interest would be the risk free rate, a 30 year Treasury rate ~3.5%, but the competition can't get these rates, so it is probably unrealistic. Anways, aassuming no expenses, the value of the property is $1,600 / 0.035 at most, $45,714.29. This is the general formula, and it should definitely be adjusted for expenses and a more realistic interest rate. Now, with a better understanding of interest rates and expenses, this will predict the most likely market value; however, it should be known that whatever interest rate is applied to the formula will be the most likely rate of return received from the investment. A Graham-Buffett value investor would suggest using a valuation no less than 15% since to a value investor, there's no point in bidding unless if the profits can be above average, ~7.5%. With a 15% interest rate and no expenses, $1,600 / .15, is $10,666.67. On average, it is unlikely that a bid this low will be successful; nevertheless, if multiple bids are placed using this similar methodology, by the law of small numbers, it is likely to hit the lottery on at most one bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98863528ca9a2014fa3bc34c6c060f5a", "text": "yes, i am incorporating monte carlo return scenarios for both equity and real estate. yeah there is a lot to consider in the case of the property being a condo where you have to account for property taxes as well as condo fees. the two projects have entirely different considerations and it's not like the money that is injected to one is similar to the other (very different) which is why i figured there should be differing discount rates. in any case, thanks for the discussion and suggestions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a7f714f0a3b50be1430a11363a34698", "text": "Aswath Damodaran's [Investment Valuation 3rd edition](http://www.amazon.com/Investment-Valuation-Techniques-Determining-University/dp/1118130731/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1339995852&sr=8-12&keywords=aswath+damodaran) (or save money and go with a used copy of the [2nd edition](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0471414905/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used)) He's a professor at Stern School of Business. His [website](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/) and [blog](http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/) are good resources as well. [Here is his support page](http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/Inv3ed.htm) for his Investment Valuation text. It includes chapter summaries, slides, ect. If you're interested in buying the text you can get an idea of what's in it by checking that site out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3277d01f335f35f5d19c74329b26e4ea", "text": "\"Yes. S&P/ Case-Shiller real-estate indices are available, as a single national index as well as multiple regional geographic indices. These indices are updated on the last Tuesday of every month. According to the Case-Shiller Index Methodology documentation: Their purpose is to measure the average change in home prices in 20 major metropolitan areas... and three price tiers– low, middle and high. The regional indices use 3-month moving averages, published with a two-month lag. This helps offset delays due to \"\"clumping\"\" in the flow of sales price data from county deed recorders. It also assures sufficient sample sizes. Regional Case-Shiller real-estate indices * Source: Case-Shiller Real-estate Index FAQ. The S&P Case-Shiller webpage has links to historical studies and commentary by Yale University Professor Shiller. Housing Views posts news and analysis for the regional indices. Yes. The CME Group in Chicago runs a real-estate futures market. Regional S&P/ Case-Schiller index futures and options are the first [security type] for managing U.S. housing risk. They provide protection, or profit, in up or down markets. They extend to the housing industry the same tools, for risk management and investment, available for agriculture and finance. But would you want to invest? Probably not. This market has minimal activity. For the three markets, San Diego, Boston and Los Angeles on 28 November 2011, there was zero trading volume (prices unchanged), no trades settled, no open interest, see far right, partially cut off in image below. * Source: Futures and options activity[PDF] for all 20 regional indices. I don't know the reason for this situation. A few guesses: Additional reference: CME spec's for index futures and options contracts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f63cceb091fed668aefa3680076af07f", "text": "\"To know if a stock is undervalued is not something that can be easily assessed (else, everybody would know which stock is undervalued and everybody will buy it until it reaches its \"\"true\"\" value). But there are methods to assess the value of a company, I think that the 3 most known methods are: If the assets of the company were to be sold right now and that all its debts were to be paid back right now, how much will be left? This remaining amount would be the fundamental value of your company. That method could work well on real estate company whose value is more or less the buildings that they own minus of much they borrowed to acquire them. It's not really usefull in the case of Facebook, as most of its business is immaterial. I know the value of several companies of the same sector, so if I want to assess the value of another company of this sector I just have to compare it to the others. For example, you find out that simiral internet companies are being traded at a price that is 15 times their projected dividends (its called a Price Earning Ratio). Then, if you see that Facebook, all else being equal, is trading at 10 times its projected dividends, you could say that buying it would be at a discount. A company is worth as much as the cash flow that it will give me in the future If you think that facebook will give some dividends for a certain period of time, then you compute their present value (this means finding how much you should put in a bank account today to have the same amount in the future, this can be done by dividing the amount by some interest rates). So, if you think that holding a share of a Facebook for a long period of time would give you (at present value) 100 and that the share of the Facebook is being traded at 70, then buy it. There is another well known method, a more quantitative one, this is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. I won't go into the details of this one, but its about looking at how a company should be priced relatively to a benchmark of other companies. Also there are a lot's of factor that could affect the price of a company and make it strays away from its fundamental value: crisis, interest rates, regulation, price of oil, bad management, ..... And even by applying the previous methods, the fundemantal value itself will remain speculative and you can never be sure of it. And saying that you are buying at a discount will remain an opinion. After that, to price companies, you are likely to understand financial analysis, corporate finance and a bit of macroeconomy.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3be8de4ae7d5ba622c1e8b2924c5fedf	How to read options prices	[ { "docid": "d12677c5ce536252d1fb9b80104aee05", "text": "This is exactly how I started, starting a simulation account on the CBOE website just to see what situation was profitable because it was all greek to me. Actually after learning the greeks, I realize that site was worse and eventually read some books and got better tools. The screenshot you have is telling you the strikes, but unfortunately they are showing you the technical name of the contract on the exchanges. For example, just like you type in AAPL to buy shares of AAPL stock, you can type in VIX1616K16E to get that one particular contract, expiration and strike. So lets break it down just by inferring, because this is what I just did with that picture: You know the current price of VIX, $17.06 Calls expiring November 16th, 2016: What is changing? SYMBOL / YEAR / EXPIRATION DAY / STRIKE / OPTION-STYLE (?) So knowing that in the money options will be more expensive, and near the money options will be slightly cheaper, and out the money will be even cheaper, you can see what is going on, per expiration.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3d0da0c6bc7b519bbf9f4a9cccfde482", "text": "\"You'd need to know the delta and the theta of the option. You can either calculate them yourself using a model like Black-Scholes (assuming you have a market price and can imply a volatility, and know the other factors that go into the model) or, you can see if your broker quotes \"\"greeks\"\" as well (mine does). The delta is the sensitivity (rate of change in value) to the underlying stock price, and the theta is the sensitivity to time passing (usually expressed in $/day). So if your option has a delta of .5 and a theta of -.04, when one day passes and the underlying stock goes up $3, the option will gain roughly $1.50 due to the underlying stock price and lose $0.04 due to time passing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d64699c18a0229bfc509a26b3a4c0d2", "text": "\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "329675bf2c9692f2f78d55243aa4920e", "text": "\"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab5c1671ac2ffb380ff40d351a547036", "text": "Now it's been a while since I read these, and I'm not complete sure if these are the kinds of books that you're looking for, but I found them quite good: Options, Futures, and Other Derivatives by Hull: http://amzn.com/0133456315 Investments and Portfolio Management by Bodie, Kane & Marcus: http://amzn.com/0071289143 I hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a4079725f2d6fbf8f1f84c9048db43f", "text": "\"This chart concerns an option contract, not a stock. The method of analysis is to assume that the price of an option contract is normally distributed around some mean which is presumably the current price of the underlying asset. As the date of expiration of the contract gets closer the variation around the mean in the possible end price for the contract will decrease. Undoubtedly the publisher has measured typical deviations from the mean as a function of time until expiration from historical data. Based on this data, the program that computes the probability has the following inputs: (1) the mean (current asset price) (2) the time until expiration (3) the expected standard deviation based on (2) With this information the probability distribution that you see is generated (the green hump). This is a \"\"normal\"\" or Gaussian distribution. For a normal distribution the probability of a particular event is equal to the area under the curve to the right of the value line (in the example above the value chosen is 122.49). This area can be computed with the formula: This formula is called the probability density for x, where x is the value (122.49 in the example above). Tau (T) is the reciprocal of the variance (which can be computed from the standard deviation). Mu (μ) is the mean. The main assumption such a calculation makes is that the price of the asset will not change between now and the time of expiration. Obviously that is not true in most cases because the prices of stocks and bonds constantly fluctuate. A secondary assumption is that the distribution of the option price around the mean will a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. This is obviously a crude assumption and common sense would suggest it is not the most accurate distribution. In fact, various studies have shown that the Burr Distribution is actually a more accurate model for the distribution of option contract prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9a98d7927e125f4b8fad5386a9e4ff5", "text": "I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73ba7fddc5657098f06a536c734a6205", "text": "Yes, past option prices are available for many options, but as far as I know not for free. You can get them from, for example, OptionMetrics. Probably there are other providers as well, which may be cheaper for an individual or small institution. OptionMetrics data comes from the National Best Bid and Offer. Probably there are some over-the-counter options that are not included here, but for someone asking this question, OptionMetrics will most likely have the option you are interested in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "294a723f083a1c211ead746ce4b415f6", "text": "Options reflect expectations about the underlying asset, and options are commonly priced using the Black-Scholes model: N(d1) and N(d2) are probability functions, S is the spot (current) price of the asset, K is the strike price, r is the risk free rate, and T-t represents time to maturity. Without getting into the mathematics, it suffices to say that higher volatility or expectation of volatility increases the perceived riskiness of the asset, so call options are priced lower and put options are priced higher. Think about it intuitively. If the stock is more likely to go downwards, then there's an increased chance that the call option expires worthless, so call options must be priced lower to accommodate the relative change in expected value of the option. Puts are priced similarly, but they move inversely with respect to call option prices due to Put-Call parity. So if call option prices are falling, then put option prices are rising (Note, however, that call prices falling does not cause put prices to rise. The inverse relationship exists because of changes in the underlying factors and how pricing works.) So the option action signifies that the market believes the stock is headed lower (in the given time frame). That does not mean it will go lower, and option traders assume risk whenever they take a particular position. Bottom line: gotta do your own homework! Best of luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08195dbfa4527437a69f5a81e359ea3e", "text": "Yes, you've got it right. The change in price is less meaningful as the instrument is further from the price of the underlying. As the delta moves less, the gamma is much less. Gamma is to delta as acceleration is to speed. Speed is movement relative to X, and acceleration is rate of change in speed. Delta is movement relative to S, and gamma is the rate of change in delta. Delta changes quickly when it is around the money, which is another way of saying gamma is higher. Delta is the change of the option price relative to the change in stock price. If the strike price is near the market price, then the odds of being in or out of the money could appear to be changing very quickly - even going back and forth repeatedly. Gamma is the rate of change of the delta, so these sudden lurches in pricing are by definition the gamma. This is to some extent a little mundane and even obvious. But it's a useful heuristic for analyzing prices and movement, as well as for focusing analyst attention on different pricing aspects. You've got it right. If delta is constant (zero 'speed' for the change in price) then gamma is zero (zero 'acceleration').", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c49acb0fec8e63a0b3a15cbc4e4d64cd", "text": "In a simple world yes, but not in the real world. Option pricing isn't that simplistic in real life. Generally option pricing uses a Monte Carlo simulation of the Black Scholes formula/binomial and then plot them nomally to decide the optimum price of the option. Primarily multiple scenarios are generated and under that specific scenario the option is priced and then a price is derived for the option in real life, using the prices which were predicted in the scenarios. So you don't generate a single price for an option, because you have to look into the future to see how the price of the option would behave, under the real elements of the market. So what you price is an assumption that this is the most likely value under my scenarios, which I predicted into the future. Because of the market, if you price an option higher/lower than another competitor you introduce an option for arbitrage by others. So you try to be as close to the real value of the option, which your competitor also does. The more closer your option value is to the real price the better it is for all. Did you try the book from Hull ? EDIT: While pricing you generally take variables which would affect the price of your option. The more variables you take(more nearer you are to the real situation) the more realistic your price will be and you would converge on the real price faster. So simple formula is an option, but the deviations maybe large from the real value. And you would end up loosing money, most of the time. So the complicated formula is there for getting a more accurate price, not to confuse people. You can use your formula, but there will be odds stacked against you to loose money, from the onset, because you didn't consider the variables which might/would affect the price of your option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3befa06aff1f9bdd4c44321420a6f7d0", "text": "Options - yes we can :) Options tickers on Yahoo! Finance will be displayed as per new options symbology announced by OCC. The basic parts of new option symbol are: Root symbol + Expiration Year(yy)+ Expiration Month(mm)+ Expiration Day(dd) + Call/Put Indicator (C or P) + Strike price Ex.: AAPL January 19 2013, Put 615 would be AAPL130119P00615000 http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL130119P00615000&ql=1 Futures - yes as well (: Ex.: 6A.M12.E would be 6AM12.CME using Yahoo Finance symbology. (simple as that, try it out) Get your major futures symbols from here: http://quotes.ino.com/exchanges/exchange.html?e=CME", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5c9706bacdfd6d5292d408675b78aaf", "text": "remember that IV is literally the volatility that would be present to equate to the latest price of a particular option contract, assuming the Black-Scholes-Merton model. Yahoo's free finance service lists the IV for all the options that it tracks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81c6dcc61de45c101cb5c63baecf220", "text": "The CBOE site, as well as some other sites and trading platforms, will show the bid/ask and statistics for that option at each individual options exchange, in addition to statistics and the best bid/offer across all exchanges. cboe.com: Delayed Quote Help lists what the single-letter codes mean. A is for the AMEX options exchange, B is for BOX, X is for PHLX, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ddf64e9c50baa408074c1b2ff9aec11", "text": "\"I commend you for your desire to be a smart and engaged investor. Regarding the other comments, yes the market is unpredictable and dangerous, but such is everything that leads to profit. I am currently reading, \"\"Advanced Options Pricing Models\"\" (Katz and McCormick) - mighy be at your local library. The book is helpful because in explaining the options market, it covers basic stock methodologies and then builds on them as it pursues a quant's math/computation based view of the market. The book is highly math oriented and discusses authors' custom design scripts/alogrithms to analyze market behavior. See similar post about technical analysis (since it often directs short term trading decisisions).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4825e8a0962649b6904d3c1bcab7a93b", "text": "\"you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. ... So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. So, if you just wander in and say \"\"oh, hey, look, a bunch of options, i'm going to play games and have excitement\"\" then that is, in fact, some sort of gambling. Indeed, most trading activities will be like that to you. On the other hand, you might be engaged in other business where those things matter. You might be doing a lot of trading elsewhere in the market, for instance, and suddenly everyone freaks out and the stock market goes crazy and you lose a ton of money. To protect yourself from losing a ton of money, you might buy a binary option based on VIX (the volatility index) going over a certain level. If you're not in a business where you're buying it to protect yourself, then you should probably only buy the options if you have reason to think it'll be profitable and worth the risk. If you don't understand the risks, skip it.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fea1549ae00210818426a9ce845a2ff2	What is the effect of a cancelled stock order on a stock and the market?	[ { "docid": "02b06b32f83f65d01ab0230c995ad296", "text": "\"That article, like almost any article written by a non-expert and quoting only \"\"research\"\" from lobbying groups, hugely misses the point. The vast majority of orders that end up being cancelled are cancelled as a standard part of exchanges' official market-maker programs. Each exchange wants you and me to know that it has liquidity -- that when we go to buy or sell some stock, there will be someone waiting on the other side of the trade. So the exchange pays (via lowered fees or even rebates) hundreds of registered market makers to constantly have orders resting in each product's order book within a few ticks of the current NBBO or the last trade price. That way, if everyone else should suddenly disappear from the market, you and I will still be able to trade our shares for a price somewhat close to the last trade price. But market makers who are simply acting in this \"\"backstop\"\" role don't actually want to have their orders filled, because those orders will almost always lose them money. So as prices rise and fall (as much as tens of times per second), the market makers need to cancel their resting orders (so they don't get filled) and add new ones at new prices (so they meet their obligations to the exchange). And because the number of orders resting in any given product's order book is vastly larger than the number of actual trades that take place in any given time period, naturally the number of cancellations is also going to hugely outweigh the number of actual trades. As much as 97% to 3% (or even more). But that's completely fine! You and I don't have to care about any of that. We almost never need the market makers to be there to trade with us. They're only there as a backstop. There's almost always plenty of organic liquidity for us to trade against. Only in the rare case where liquidity completely dries up do we really care that the registered market makers are there. And in those cases (ideally) the market makers can't cancel their orders (depending on how well the exchange has set up its market maker program). So, to answer your question, the effect of standard order cancellation on a stock is essentially none. If you were to visualize the resting orders in a product's book as prices moved up and down, you would essentially see a Gaussian distribution with mean at the last trade price, and it would move up and down with the price. That \"\"movement\"\" is accomplished by cancellations followed by new orders. P.S. As always, keep in mind that your and my orders almost never actually make it to a real stock exchange anymore. Nowadays they are almost always sent to brokers' and big banks' internal dark pools. And in there you and I have no idea what shenanigans are going on. As just one example, dark pools allow their operators and (for a fee) other institutional participants access to a feature called last look that allows them to cancel their resting order as late as after your order has been matched against it! :( Regarding the question in your comment ... If Alice is sending only bona fide orders (that is, only placing an order at time T if, given all the information she has at time T, she truly wants and intends for it to be filled) then her cancellation at a later time actually adds to the effectiveness of and public perception of the market as a tool for price discovery (which is its ultimate purpose). [In the following example imagine that there are no such things as trading fees or commissions or taxes.] Let's say Alice offers to buy AAPL at $99.99 when the rest of the market is trading it for $100.00. By doing so she is casting her vote that the \"\"fair value\"\" of a share of AAPL is between $99.99 and $100.00. After all, if she thought the fair value of a share of AAPL was higher -- say, between $100.00 and $100.01 -- then she should be willing to pay $100.00 (because that's below fair value) and she should expect that other people in the market will not soon decide to sell to her at $99.99. If some time later Alice does decide that the fair value of AAPL is between $100.00 and $100.01 then she should definitely cancel her order at $99.99, for exactly the reason discussed above. She probably won't get filled at $99.99, and by sitting there stubbornly she's missing out (potentially forever) on the possibility to make a profit. Through the simple act of cancelling her $99.99 order, Alice is once again casting a vote that she no longer thinks that's AAPL's fair value. She is (very slightly) altering the collective opinion of the entire market as to what a share of AAPL is worth. And if her cancellation then frees her up to place another order closer to her perceived fair value (say, at $100.00), then that's another vote for her honest optinion about AAPL's price. Since the whole goal of the market is to get a bunch of particpants to figure out the fair value of some financial instrument (or commodity, or smart phone, or advertising time, etc.), cancellations of honest votes from the past in order to replace them with new, better-informed honest votes in the present can only be a good thing for the market's effectiveness and perceived effectiveness. It's only when participants start sending non-honest votes (non bona fide orders) that things start to go off the rails. That's what @DumbCoder was referring to in his comment on your original question.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cb26e3fb492f39f9e3ea3f49095ad67d", "text": "Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37c41674cbb1ba864f913bcb17ba5cf5", "text": "\"EDIT: It was System Disruption or Malfunctions August 24, 2015 2:12 PM EDT Pursuant to Rule 11890(b) NASDAQ, on its own motion, in conjunction with BATS, and FINRA has determined to cancel all trades in security Blackrock Capital Investment. (Nasdaq: BKCC) at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET. This decision cannot be appealed. NASDAQ will be canceling trades on the participants behalf. A person on Reddit claimed that he was the buyer. He used Robinhood, a $0 commission broker and start-up. The canceled trades are reflected on CTA/UTP and the current charts will differ from the one posted below. It is an undesired effect of the 5-minute Trading Halt. It is not \"\"within 1 hour of opening, BKCC traded between $0.97 and $9.5\"\". Those trades only occurred for a few seconds on two occasions. One possible reason is that when the trading halt ended, there was a lot of Market Order to sell accumulated. Refer to the following chart, where each candle represents a 10 second period. As you can see, the low prices did not \"\"sustain\"\" for hours. And the published halts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d17466538d7ee9d31e8ea996238f46", "text": "Your three options are: Options 2 and 3 are obviously identical (other than transaction costs), so if you want to keep the stock, go for option 1, otherwise, go for option 3 since you have the same effect as option 2 with no transaction costs. The loss will likely also offset some of the other short term gains you mentioned.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94bc6ab37faff03c2d0469edd874382b", "text": "\"I'm adding to @Dilip's basic answer, to cover the additional points in your question. I'll assume you are referring to publicly traded stock options, such as those found on the CBOE, and not an option contract entered into privately between two specific counterparties (e.g. as in an employer stock option plan). Since you are not obligated to exercise a call option you purchased on the market, you don't need to maintain funds on account for possible exercising. You could instead let the option expire, or resell the option, neither of which requires funds available for purchase of the underlying shares. However, should you actually choose to exercise the call option (and usually this is done close to expiration, if at all), you will be required to fund your account much like if you bought the underlying shares in the first place. Call your broker to determine the exact rules and timing for when they need the money for a call-option exercise. And to expand on the idea of \"\"cancelling\"\" an option you purchased: No, you cannot \"\"cancel\"\" an option contract, per se. But, you are permitted to sell the call option to somebody else willing to buy, via the market. When you sell your call option, you'll either make or lose money on the sale – depending on the price of the underlying shares at the time (are they in- or out- of the money?), volatility in the market, and remaining time value. Once you sell, you're back to \"\"no position\"\". That's not the same as \"\"cancelled\"\", but you are out of the trade, whether at profit or loss. Furthermore, the option writer (i.e. the seller who \"\"sold to open\"\" a position, in writing the call in the first place) is also not permitted to cancel the option he wrote. However, the option writer is permitted to close out the original short position by simply buying back a matching call option on the market. Again, this would occur at either profit or loss based on market prices at the time. This second kind of buy order – i.e. made by someone who initially wrote a call option – is called a \"\"buy to close\"\", meaning the purchase of an offsetting position. (The other kind of buy is the \"\"buy to open\"\".) Then, consider: Since an option buyer is free to re-sell the option purchased, and since an option writer (who \"\"sold to open\"\" the new contract) is also free to buy back an offsetting option, a process known as clearing is required to match remaining buyers exercising the call options held with the remaining option writers having open short positions for the contract. For CBOE options, this clearing is performed by the Options Clearing Corporation. Here's how it works (see here): What is the OCC? The Options Clearing Corporation is the sole issuer of all securities options listed at the CBOE, four other U.S. stock exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), and is the entity through which all CBOE option transactions are ultimately cleared. As the issuer of all options, OCC essentially takes the opposite side of every option traded. Because OCC basically becomes the buyer for every seller and the seller for every buyer, it allows options traders to buy and sell in a secondary market without having to find the original opposite party. [...] [emphasis above is mine] When a call option writer must deliver shares to a call option buyer exercising a call, it's called assignment. (I have been assigned before, and it isn't pleasant to see a position called away that otherwise would have been very profitable if the call weren't written in the first place!) Also, re: \"\"I know my counter party cannot sell his shares\"\" ... that's not strictly true. You are thinking of a covered call. But, an option writer doesn't necessarily need to own the underlying shares. Look up Naked call (Wikipedia). Naked calls aren't frequently undertaken because a naked call \"\"is one of the riskiest options strategies because it carries unlimited risk\"\". The average individual trader isn't usually permitted by their broker to enter such an order, but there are market participants who can do such a trade. Finally, you can learn more about options at The Options Industry Council (OIC).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d6e3a31ea771b143e0a02ff3d3e019", "text": "They put their stock on the market that people then purchased, if they don't put that stock out there then I suspect those people will just buy the stock from somewhere, so really no harm was caused to any individual that would have been prevented otherwise. It's not great, and shouldn't be done as market asssumtry isn't good. I think the punishments for if aren't to right any sort of wrongdoing, it's to act as a deterrent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f818a172800ab3e8c4068baf50271cc", "text": "The short answer to your question is yes. Company performance affects stock price only through investors' views. But note that selling for higher and lower prices when the company is doing well or poorly is not an arbitrary choice. A stock is a claim on the future cash flows of the firm, which ultimately come from its future profits. If the company is doing well, investors will likely expect that there will large cash flows (dividends) in the future and be willing to pay more to hold it (or require more to sell it). The price of a stock is equal what people think the future dividends are worth. If market participants started behaving irrationally, like not reacting to changes in the expected future cash flows, then arbitrageurs would make a ton of money trading against them until the situation was rectified.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24f8ef68a02f2c845e9305c18857f6f0", "text": "There are a few scenarios I see possible: 1. Risk parameters in the algo were set very conservatively. Putting quotes out and canceling them is very common. 2. It was looking to exploit situations where someone rips through the book with a market order. 3. It was reacting too slowly to signals, and chasing opportunities that had already passed. Other comments: What do you believe front running is? Your version differs from the textbook definition. Quote taxes are more effective than minimum order durations. I wrote about how that works in a previous post in this thread.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10eb73ad36ad882760546e1c2d65b48a", "text": "As stock prices have declined, the net worth of people has come down. Imagine owning a million shares of a stock worth $100/share. This is worth $100,000,000. Now, if the stock is suddenly trading at $50/share then some would say you have lost $50,000,000. The value of the stock is less. The uncertainty is always there as there are differences between one day's close and another day's open possibly. The sale price is likely to be near the last trade is what is being used here. If you place a market order to sell your stock, the price may move between the time the order is placed and when it is filled. There are limit orders that could be used if you want to control the minimum price you get though you give up that the order has to be filled as otherwise people could try to sell shares for millions of dollars that wouldn't work out well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd6d21819d04068e9eea9dada5e04ac5", "text": "The opening price is derived from new information received. It reflects the current state of the market. Opening Price Deviation (from Investopedia): Investor expectation can be changed by corporate announcements or other events that make the news. Corporations typically make news-worthy announcements that may have an effect on the stock price after the market closes. Large-scale natural disasters or man-made disasters such as wars or terrorist attacks that take place in the afterhours may have similar effects on stock prices. When this happens, some investors may attempt to either buy or sell securities during the afterhours. Not all orders are executed during after-hours trading. The lack of liquidity and the resulting wide spreads make market orders unattractive to traders in after-hours trading. This results in a large amount of limit or stop orders being placed at a price that is different from the prior day’s closing price. Consequently, when the market opens the next day, a substantial disparity in supply and demand causes the open to veer away from the prior day’s close in the direction that corresponds to the effect of the announcement, news or event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18c9e609e26798ff7fe305e69e7bc8ef", "text": "Does the market automatically assume a rescheduled call means something major, like the auditors aren't signing the financials, is going on? Yes. (If so, why?) People - including investors - are emotional. And suspicious. And paranoid. Financial discussions tend to make everything sound like a cold, clinical science, and to some degree that is true. But you should never look past something much more simple - people are people. And of course, once all is said and done, acts like a reschedule often do mean something is up. So you've now got a nice mix of fact and emotion. Does it mean that 95% of the shares' holders are insiders who all decided to sell when they learned about whatever is causing the delay in the con call? No. See Littleadv's answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc0e8da639dc1e73363d45aa6c5efce5", "text": "Volatility typically decreases when stocks rise except pending news events or fast markets. It has a great impact of the premium of the option.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96c93b94d8f9b5a8902c55d0f7405beb", "text": "I hate attributing an event like this to a single cause. That implies that the market is an orderly system where everything operates smoothly. I prefer to see it as much chaotic. When I see a drop like that happen, I'd say that there were a lot of sellers of stocks and all the buyers were bidding less and less for those few minutes. Perhaps the catalyst for that was a typo or a strange order. But in the end all the participants in the market responded by bidding down stocks, not just one person. It takes sides to complete a trade. I know my model is a bit simplistic... I'd be happy if someone corrected me :-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96085ed5e9764b4c6311102d80047902", "text": "Ideally, stock price reflects the value of the company, the dividends it is expected to pay, and what people expect the future value of the company to be. Only one of those (maybe one and a half) is related to current sales, and not always directly. Short-term motion of a stock is even less directly linked, since it also reflects previous expectations. A company can announce disappointing sales and see its stock go up, if the previous price was based on expecting worse news.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb44aa9c88eed2b53e5cbd2e480982bf", "text": "If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading. Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question. It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime. This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors. So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit. It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d28219405d809d4659b582e77e331c6", "text": "Insiders (those who are aware of non-public material information, not necessarily employees) are the ones who actually cannot sell once they learned about whatever, by law. Martha Stewart went to jail for that. Any such deviation from the norm triggers abnormal response and avalanche of rumors, so by default investors assume something bad and try to minimize the loss. When dealing with a tiny company (market cap of less than 15M) with a tiny market volume (6.2M), the swings can be very significant. For such a small company, it is safe to assume that something happened that lead them to delay the conference call, and since they didn't tell what happen, investors assume the worst. It might end up as the CEO and CFO having bad stomach after celebrating 100% growth in revenue they were going to announce, but you'll have to wait and see....", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d70a2c68ea5c20b1938cadc1cb8d7cb7	Who owned my shares before me?	[ { "docid": "e2f83c8b61b906a0a427d5750a545065", "text": "The answer in theory is yes. The answer in reality is no. Let me explain: Combine all of these lists and perhaps you could get a complete record.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042dd2cd7893e355109ed6a302d2ba77", "text": "Not sure about US. In India all Demat shares have a unique identity. Incase of splits or merging of shares, new ID's are created maintaining the linking of older ID's. The Demat holding entity would have all the history of a particular stock. It is mandatory to disclose the name of the person / entity who has purchased the shares. Of Course if shares are purchased by Fund houses or other aggregators then its the aggregators name that would be available. All this data is confidential and not meant for common consumption.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9840638aad3cf96aee25bd53d600d8d4", "text": "\"Shares do not themselves carry any identity. Official shareholders are kept at the registrar. In the UK, this may be kept up to date and publicly accessible. In the US, it is not, but this doesn't matter because most shares are held \"\"in street name\"\". For a fully detailed history, one would need access to all exchange records, brokerage records, and any trades transacted off exchange. These records are almost totally unavailable.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5efb66c4232a0cacd9b4a78d531db39", "text": "A lot will depend on wether you have in your possession the physical share documents or just numbers in your brokerage portfolio. Electronic shares are not traceable as they do not exist as individual entities. ETrade certainly knows who bought how much, but no concept of which ones. Lets say ET buys 1000 shares of Acme, their database looks like this: Now they sell 400 shares to Bob: Bob sells 200, Alice buys 100: ( skipped one transaction for brevity ) Did Alice get 100 shares out of ET's original 1000, or did she get 100 shares that were previously owned by Bob? Or 27 from ET and 73 from ET? Another, less exact way to picture the process is one share is 1ml of liquid. If you return 50ml to the pot it becomes indistinguishable from the rest.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a0562393c7da826282faa99246a978d7", "text": "You didn't identify the fund but here is the most obvious way: Some of the stocks they owned could had dividends. Therefore they would have had to pass them on to the investors. If the fund sold shares of stocks, they could have capital gains. They would have sold stocks to pay investors who sold shares. They also could have sold shares of stock to lock in gains, or to get out of positions they no longer wanted. Therefore a fund could have dividends, and capital gains, but not have an increase in value for the year. Some investors look at how tax efficient a fund is, before investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "40e08223ac41fd50cdae1dcf1e7cebc1", "text": "The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62018e52ddd02eed1e4c34166f6a7ae2", "text": "\"There are several such \"\"lists.\"\" The one that is maintained by the company is called the shareholder registry. That is a list that the company has given to it by the brokerage firms. It is a start, but not a full list, because many individual shareholders hold their stock with say Merrill Lynch, in \"\"street name\"\" or anonymously. A more useful list is the one of institutional ownership maintained by the SEC. Basically, \"\"large\"\" holders (of more than 5 percent of the stock) have to register their holdings with the SEC. More to the point, large holders of stocks, the Vanguards, Fidelitys, etc. over a certain size, have to file ALL their holdings of stock with the SEC. These are the people you want to contact if you want to start a proxy fight. The most comprehensive list is held by the Depositary Trust Company. People try to get that list only in rare instances.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f993f0cda37e0b1db3d20ec22f0ad75", "text": "\"There is no unique identifier that exists to identify specific shares of a stock. Just like money in the bank, there is no real reason to identify which exact dollar bills belong to me or you, so long as there is a record that I own X bills and I can access them when I want. (Of course, unlike banks, there is still a 1:1 relationship between the amount I should own and the amount they actually hold). If I may reach a bit, the question that I assume you are asking is how are shared actually tracked, transferred, and recorded so that I know for certain that I traded you 20 Microsoft shares yesterday and they are now officially yours, given that it's all digital. While you can technically try and request a physical share certificate, it's very cumbersome to handle and transfer in that form. Ownership of shares themselves are tracked for brokerage firms (in the case of retail trading, which I assume is the context of this question as we're discussion personal finance). Your broker has a record of how many shares of X, Y, and Z you own, when you bought each share and for how much, and while you are the beneficial owner of record (you get dividends, voting rights, etc.) your brokerage is the one who is \"\"holding\"\" the shares. When you buy or sell a stock and you are matched with a counterparty (the process of which is beyond the scope of this question) then a process of settlement comes into play. In the US, settlement takes 3 working days to process, and technically ownership does not transfer until the 3rd day after the trade is made, though things like margin accounts will allow you to effectively act as if you own the shares immediately after a buy/sell order is filled. Settlement in the US is done by a sole source, the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC). This is where retail and institutional trade all go to be sorted, checked and confirmed, and ultimately returned to the safekeeping of their new owners' representatives (your brokerage). Interestingly, the DTCC is also the central custodian for shares both physical and virtual, and that is where the shares of stock ultimately reside.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52ab18a2a7ca03e479b2e9b8ed29d002", "text": "You'll own whatever fraction you bought. To own the company (as in, boolean - yes or no) you need to buy 100% of the outstanding stock. RE controlling the company, in general the answer is yes - although the mechanism for this might not be so straight forward (ie. you may have to appoint board members and may only be able to do so at pre-set intervals) and there may be conditions in the company charter designed to stop this happening. Depending on your jurisdiction certain ownership percentages can also trigger the need to do certain things so you may not be able to just buy 50% - in Australia when you reach 20% ownership you have to launch a formal takeover bid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb0c0e9f4b233a6955d9dc36ca2f7d8c", "text": "\"I worked for a small private tech company that was aquired by a larger publicly traded tech company. My shares were accelerated by 18 months, as written in the contract. I excercised those shares at a very low strike price (under $1) and was given an equal number of shares in the new company. Made about $300,000 pre tax. This was in 2000. (I love how the government considered us \"\"rich\"\" that year, but have never made that amount since!)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be9423a0060236498153c933d648c914", "text": "\"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b61f1e9a03676ffb539b67ca4c76ef4", "text": "RonJohn is right, all shares are owned by someone. Depending on the company, they can be closely held so that nobody wants to sell at a given time. This can cause the price people are offering to rise until someone sells. That trade will cause an adjustment in the ticker price of that stock. Supply and demand at work. Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. The number of shares is low, the demand for them is high, the price per share is high.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57582abc0926025ba6118e91b44ce04b", "text": "In most mutual funds you delegate voting rights to the investment manager. The securities are typically held by a third party bank as part of the requirements for Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). You own equity in that mutual fund, which owns the shares (but are held by a third party); you don't have direct ownership as in most cases that would result in you owning fractions of shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ada391b851e4f03449e58bdfff9259c", "text": "\"Many thanks for thedetailed response, appreciate it. But I am still not clear on the distinction between a public company and the equity holders. Isn't a public company = shareholders + equity holders? Or do you mean \"\"company\"\" = shareholders+equity holders + debt holders?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21dc9abe53c4abd581bbc4cc434ccffd", "text": "...ok, you understand that the board of directors don't collect all of the profit from a company, and that shareholders can sell stock, right? It his honestly confusing to me that you have a problem with shareholders being given ownership in a company that is spun off from the company that they own.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "847ec3502d4bba1350c0a140e560d07c", "text": "Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af2847868620f385478d62c42ac93199", "text": "As you can see at https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AAAPL the number of apple shares at this very moment is 5.25B, so if you have 1 share you own 1 / 5.25B of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8c371e758fe5e0eb141b70578ba7536", "text": "\"You cannot determine this solely by the ticker length. However, there are some conventions that may help steer you there. Nasdaq has 2-4 base letters BATS has 4 base letters NYSE equity securities have 1-4 base letters. NYSE Mkt (formerly Amex) have 1-4 base letters. NYSE Arca has 4 base letters OTC has 4 base letters. Security types other than equities may have additional letters added, and each exchange (and data vendors) have different conventions for how this is handled. So if you see \"\"T\"\" for a US-listed security it would be only be either NASDAQ, NYSE or NYSE Mkt. If you see \"\"ANET\"\" then you cannot tell which exchange it is listed on. (In this case, ANET Arista Networks is actually a NYSE stock). For some non-equity security types, such as hybrids, and debt instruments, some exchanges add \"\"P\"\" to the end for \"\"preferreds\"\" (Nasdaq and OTC) and NYSE/NYSE Mkt have a variety of methods (including not adding anything) to the ticker. Examples include NYSE:TFG, NYSEMkt:IPB, Nasdaaq: AGNCP, Nasdaq:OXLCN. It all becomes rather confusing given the changes in conventions over the years. Essentially, you require data that provides you with ticker, listing location and security type. The exchanges allocate security tickers in conjunction with the SEC so there are no overlaps. eg. The same ticker cannot represent two different securities. However, tickers can be re-used. For example, the ticker AB has been used by the following companies:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "747cc718e1016927fc48bf0216b35c05", "text": "As others have said, it depends on the brokerage firm. My broker is Scottrade. With Scottrade the commission is assessed and applied the moment the order is filled. If I buy 100 shares of XYZ at $10 a share then Scottrade will immediately deduct $1007.02 out of my account. They add the commission and fees to the buy transaction. On a sale transaction they subtract the commission and fees from the resulting money. So if I sell 100 shares of XYZ at $11 a share I will get 1,092.98 put into my account, which I can use three business days later.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c9e8af54cad3870a872adbee686d799c	Why would anyone buy a government bond?	[ { "docid": "9c7e9fdd7c91b218a2c43b183b06dad3", "text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f276d8ccfb139215f4493621ad208221", "text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a098f01bc8fa47e3f9160a018b52c89b", "text": "There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices. If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time? Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates. Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later. Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it? For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30036900c61f555fd1276bf5e10425c8", "text": "\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e1153acc2c4b339189bdcf1f88d1b7e5", "text": "When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a7bd36c545fb5229e6d80425af33a9", "text": "This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance. Think about it this way... You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%. An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in. You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk. Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for. So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f2ea3f06194bf4fdbfa53f7af8e376", "text": "It's the rate of return on new opportunities. The rate on existing projects isn't relevant. If you buy a bond 10 years ago when market Interest rates were 8%, and you have cash to buy another bond today, it is today's interest rates that are relevant, not the rates 10 years ago.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37e3a40c3110ead79b3ce6cf7e63ac5e", "text": "\"This is an easy question - The US government has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it will bail out the \"\"established\"\" auto industry. Tesla is very very cool, and may well bury the rest of the auto industry eventually, but they're not viewed as \"\"too big to fail\"\". Thus, Ford's bonds, even if practically \"\"junk\"\", are essentially backed by US Treasury; that's a pretty good deal, if you're looking for ultra low risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a", "text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0ac679b83e91d72c1f7bfe9c8c334d3", "text": "The U.S. treasury sells Treasury Bonds directly to consumers at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7077d59b515eba495c5ceab28cfb7d7b", "text": "I believe it’s because the old ticker machines only had 32 symbols making each symbol (1/32) a tick. (Back in the London Stock / Debt exchange in the 18th century) . The first ever government bond was issued by the Bank of England in 1693 to raise money to fund a war against France", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7", "text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0be4c290617e9cebd4b30f64ba5183f", "text": "Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74", "text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just decide that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "845477d89e3c5ff7b89554405e5d8b21", "text": "\"I don't like buying individual bonds for my own portfolio. I actually used to buy long-term government strip bonds (Canadas or provincial bonds) but I stopped. Here are some reasons why: My broker allows me to purchase bonds via their web application. However, to sell a bond, I had to call in to the fixed-income trading desk. That was inconvenient. (But your broker may be different.) Bonds don't typically trade on a formal exchange. So, there's no cheap & easy way (as far as I know) to get an independent quote for a bond's value – I had to trust what my broker said my bond was worth when assessing my portfolio performance. I asked my broker once how they arrive at the \"\"market value\"\" shown – i.e. whether it was last bid, ask, or actual trade – and I was told they use a third party bond quotation / valuation information provider for the data, and that quotes are an estimate of what the bond would be worth, based on similar bonds. I quickly learned that wasn't the value I could actually get when selling it: When you're dealing with your broker to buy and sell bonds, you're likely dealing with theirs or a related investment bank which makes a market for specific issues of bonds. While I wasn't being charged an explicit commission to buy or sell bonds, it was evident the broker makes money off the spread: That is, the difference between what they would be willing to sell a bond for and what they would be willing to buy that same bond for. They will buy your bond back from you cheaper than what they could turn around and sell it to somebody else for. That's why they don't charge an explicit commission... it's built in and hidden! Anyway, when I finally discovered my broker would seldom actually offer me the \"\"market value\"\" quoted for my bonds (typically, it would be bought back for a few percent less than it were theoretically worth), I gave up. I don't think bonds simply are liquid enough, nor the costs transparent enough for retail investors. (Or maybe it's just me :-) However, I do think bonds remain an important part of a diversified portfolio: Bonds ought to be represented in a diversified portfolio using low-cost bond index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. Since these funds buy & sell bonds in large quantities, they get a better deal on the spreads. So, while you do pay an explicit management fee for a fund, you are probably saving since you're not getting shafted on the spreads.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "198b2f9e139ecf91225ad6f74321a27c", "text": "China actively SELLS US Treasuries. http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704097904577257030958775246.html The Chinese are not stupid. Why the fuck would someone buy a 2 year at .2% when inflation is over 1% PER YEAR? So insolvent banks can park collateral at Central Banks for cash. This is why the balance sheets of developed world nations have exploded since 2008. http://www.alsosprachanalyst.com/economy/charting-central-banks-balance-sheets.html edited: for unnecessary rudeness", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a67e97c315357cc1ac6335a6f29b8e79", "text": "\"There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. \"\"Rich\"\" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "160c44a324bab3abc239fa3ebc2a53bf", "text": "Yes, the Fed has made a point of buying up longer-term bonds to push down rates on that part of the curve. That's not an indication that they're having problems selling Treasuries, in fact far from it. But apparently there's no demand for Treasuries and Bloomberg is just making up lies to help get Obama reelected? >Investors are plowing into Treasuries (USB2YBC) at a record pace as the supply of the world’s safest securities dwindles, ensuring yields will stay low regardless of whether the Federal Reserve undertakes more stimulus to fight unemployment. Buyers bid $3.19 for each dollar of the $538 billion in notes and bonds sold this year, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 and on pace to beat the high of $3.04 in 2011. The net amount of Treasuries available will decline by 30 percent once proceeds from maturing securities are reinvested, according to data from CRT Capital Group LLC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-09/record-treasury-demand-keeps-yields-low-as-supply-shrinks.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52ec3ac54366f8034c62e3e58a52a015", "text": "Running a fiscal deficit means a government is spending more money than it is taking in as taxes, fees, penalties, fines, etc, with the extra money that is being spent being borrowed by selling bonds to willing buyers. Interest paid to said buyers is another government expense in future years, and of course, the bonds must ultimately be redeemed and the buyers paid off. The buyers of the bonds must have some confidence that they will get the interest they have been promised as well as be paid off ultimately. As the government's indebtedness increases, buyers are likely to demand higher interest rates as inducements to buy the bonds. And so it goes...", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3852c6d5e0c9e16e8a19bea234c2c974	Are there any market data providers that provide a query language?	[ { "docid": "8bc214581ab68636e45093c6a9e87aaa", "text": "You can give YQL a try. I'm not sure it can do the query you want, but for example you can do: (try it here) And this best thing about it - it's free.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "96ffe6a551593b9b69ec6a68d6a2175b", "text": "You may refer to project http://jstock.sourceforge.net. It is open source and released under GPL. It is fetching data from Yahoo! Finance, include delayed current price and historical price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f8ff70696e06a1a1df44938f4de14eb", "text": "If you have access, factset and bloomberg have this. However, these aren't standardized due to non-existent reporting regulations, therefore each company may choose to categorize regions differently. This makes it difficult to work with a large universe, and you'll probably end up doing a large portion manually anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e9db69eef27c1bdf95c462af1dc428", "text": "Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b97c12e43ff897b685f9465d1f85e67", "text": "I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1c3ef346e865a00ed0f22d1e57bf6c2", "text": "You might have better luck using Quandl as a source. They have free databases, you just need to register to access them. They also have good api's, easier to use than the yahoo api's Their WIKI database of stock prices is curated and things like this are fixed (www.quandl.com/WIKI ), but I'm not sure that covers the London stock exchange. They do, however, have other databases that cover the London stock exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7978a163ea6fbead1bd037bcc1a14902", "text": "I also searched for some time before discovering Market Archive, which AFAIK is the most affordable option that basically gives you a massive multi-GB dump of data. I needed sufficient data to build a model and didn't want to work through an API or have to hand-pick the securities to train from. After trying to do this on my own by scraping Yahoo and using the various known tools, I decided my time was better spent not dealing with rate-limiting issues and parsing quirks and whatnot, so I just subscribed to Market Archive (they update the data daily).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4c651b113f4bbcad8715b0faeacc2df", "text": "This is interesting. The application I'm putting together is more along the lines of automating the research process for a financial professional using a personal algorithm of his. The end goal is to provide him an alert to email when a new report is filed and if his criteria are met based on that report and past reports. Thanks anyway.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42a3839e68b1f3ff5b97da306e838cce", "text": "\"There are several reasons to pay for data instead of using Yahoo Finance, although these reasons don't necessarily apply to you if you're only planning to use the data for personal use. Yahoo will throttle you if you attempt to download too much data in a short time period. You can opt to use the Yahoo Query Language (YQL), which does provide another interface to their financial data apart from simply downloading the CSV files. Although the rate limit is higher for YQL, you may still run into it. An API that a paid data provider exposes will likely have higher thresholds. Although the reliability varies throughout the site, Yahoo Finance isn't considered the most reliable of sources. You can't beat free, of course, but at least for research purposes, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) at UChicago and Wharton is considered the gold standard. On the commercial side, data providers like eSignal, Bloomberg, Reuters also enjoy widespread popularity. Although both the output from YQL and Yahoo's current CSV output are fairly standard, they won't necessarily remain that way. A commercial API is basically a contract with the data provider that they won't change the format without significant prior notice, but it's reasonable to assume that if Yahoo wanted to, they could make minor changes to the format and break many commercial applications. A change in Yahoo's format would likely break many sites or applications too, but their terms of use do state that Yahoo \"\"may change, suspend, or discontinue any aspect of the Yahoo! Finance Modules at any time, including the availability of any Yahoo! Finance Modules. Yahoo! may also impose limits on certain features and services or restrict your access to parts or all of the Yahoo! Finance Modules or the Yahoo! Web site without notice or liability.\"\" If you're designing a commercial application, a paid provider will probably provide technical support for their API. According to Yahoo Finance's license terms, you can't use the data in a commercial application unless you specifically use their \"\"badges\"\" (whatever those are). See here. In this post, a Yahoo employee states: The Finance TOS is fairly specific. Redistribution of data is only allowed if you are using the badges the team has created. Otherwise, you can use YQL or whatever method to obtain data for personal use. The license itself states that you may not: sell, lease, or sublicense the Yahoo! Finance Modules or access thereto or derive income from the use or provision of the Yahoo! Finance Modules, whether for direct commercial or monetary gain or otherwise, without Yahoo!'s prior, express, written permission In short, for personal use, Yahoo Finance is more than adequate. For research or commercial purposes, a data provider is a better option. Furthermore, many commercial applications require more data than Yahoo provides, e.g. tick-by-tick data for equities, derivatives, futures, data on mergers, etc., which a paid data source will likely provide. Yahoo is also known for inaccuracies in its financial statements; I can't find any examples at the moment, but I had a professor who enjoyed pointing out flaws in the 10K's that he had come across. I've always assumed this is because the data were manually entered, although I would assume EDGAR has some method for automatic retrieval. If you want data that are guaranteed to be accurate, or at least have a support contract associated with them so you know who to bother if it isn't, you'll need to pay for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97a05c3d030d2e21517b4fe44e809822", "text": "In Japan, there's a competition well-lasting since 2004 or so where you can run your own software agent in a virtual market. Market data is updated from the real world everyday. And if your agent proves good, the organizer puts it into the real market. The language is unfortunately limited to Java only to my knowledge. OS is not limited since your agent is supposed to run on the organizer's environment. English might not be well supported on their web site...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e23e5f9545636f5431c911d953156a45", "text": "\"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95732c64f125135f542c48676c102c42", "text": "I am a web developer by day and financial systems programmer by night. You'll need to learn a compiled language and how to scale data storage if you want to code for finance. I would suggest you learn C# or Java if you really want a decent gig programming in the finance industry. Anybody using PHP and API's to trade isn't somebody you want to work for. It will cause way more headaches than it's worth and you miss opportunities due to speed and efficiency of a language like PHP. You will hit a wall with it at some point (some problem/bug/whatever that can't be solved), and it will really bring you down when you realize it has to be re-done in another language. That being said, PHP is great for the front end (showing people the data and letting them search etc), but the core of it that grabs stats and does the calculations should be in a compiled language. PHP can also be used to quickly test ideas to see if it's worth building a full system that will scale. Basically a rough draft of the program to see if it's going to work out. Why? Well in PHP you can get things done very quickly with very little code because a large amount of libraries and functions exist and it's a very easy language to understand. But it's not efficient, and that's why you create the real deal program using C, C#, or java, or whatever. Scalability of data storage will be important to. You'll need to store a ton of information and you'll need to be able to sort/change/remove/add it quickly. Many databases already exist to do this and I see you know MySQL already a good bit. You'll need to get very familiar with it because the database is going to be your biggest bottleneck in terms of speed. It doesn't matter how well your software works if the database is taking 5 seconds to return a query. Learn to tweak MySQL, learn about MSSQL, look into Firebird. Also learn about at least one NoSQL storage solution (these databases can store a massive amount of information, but they work differently than a sql database does). I would recommend learning MongoDB if you already know PHP. It is a good transition from SQL style databases to Key Storage databases. Hope this helps...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1ded2f72c454e71a422d4f33621683a", "text": "Now, you can do business Millet Export Data overseas easily and understand the policies of your competitors with data services online. The Database we offer include with price, Date, HS code, Product Description, Bill of Loading, Quantity, Country Name, Port Name etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43b5e2eff2438cb0614ae2ecf7afe2da", "text": "Yes, Alpha Vantage. As MasticatedTesticle points out, it is worth asking where it originally comes from, but it looked to me like a solid source for, in particular, intraday trading data. Additionally, Yahoo finance is done on R (zoo, PerformanceAnalytics libraries don't work anymore as far as I can tell). The numbers look right to me tho, let me know if things are off.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58d1faa2f4156ea3d559119dac018463", "text": "Moody's is now Mergent Online. It's no longer being printed, and must be accessed digitally. In order to browse the database, check with your local public library or university to see if you can get access. (A University will probably require you to visit for access). Another good tool is Value Line Reports. They are printed information sheets on public companies that are updated regularly, and are convenient for browsing and for comparing securities. Again, check your local libraries. A lot of the public information you may be looking for can be found on Yahoo Finance, for free, from home. Yahoo finance, will give financial information, ratios, news, filings, analysis, all in one place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f92cb14816caab7b709676a9ececf57", "text": "I have a finance background and realized I love programming. I'm learning JS/Node/Socket to create realtime data apps. Later on, I might use Python to crunch some numbers but the aforementioned stack seems to hold a lot of utility for the financial world.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
63e2758354e9ee205a5325f5dd39a503	If I buy a share from myself at a higher price, will that drive the price up so I can sell all my shares the higher price?	[ { "docid": "1113a65ceab6020675408bde08a986cd", "text": "\"This probably won't be a popular answer due to the many number of disadvantaged market participants out there but: Yes, it is possible to distort the markets for securities this way. But it is more useful to understand how this works for any market (since it is illegal in securities markets where company shares are involves). Since you asked about the company Apple, you should be aware this is a form of market manipulation and is illegal... when dealing with securities. In any supply and demand market this is possible especially during periods when other market participants are not prevalent. Now the way to do this usually involves having multiple accounts you control, where you are acting as multiple market participants with different brokers etc. The most crafty ways to do with involve shell companies w/ brokerage accounts but this is usually to mask illegal behavior In the securities markets where there are consequences for manipulating the shares of securities. In other markets this is not necessary because there is no authority prohibiting this kind of trading behavior. Account B buys from Account A, account A buys from Account B, etc. The biggest issue is getting all of the accounts capitalized initially. The third issue is then actually being able to make a profit from doing this at all. Because eventually one of your accounts will have all of the shares or whatever, and there would still be no way to sell them because there are no other market participants to sell to, since you were the only one moving the price. Therefore this kind of market manipulation is coupled with \"\"promotions\"\" to attract liquidity to a financial product. (NOTE the mere fact of a promotion does not mean that illegal trading behavior is occurring, but it does usually mean that someone else is selling into the liquidity) Another way to make this kind of trading behavior profitable is via the derivatives market. Options contracts are priced solely by the trading price of the underlying asset, so even if your multiple account trading could only at best break even when you sell your final holdings (basically resetting the price to where it was because you started distorting it), this is fine because your real trade is in the options market. Lets say Apple was trading at $200 , the options contract at the $200 strike is a call trading at $1 with no intrinsic value. You can buy to open several thousand of the $200 strike without distorting the shares market at all, then in the shares market you bid up Apple to $210, now your options contract is trading at $11 with $10 of intrinsic value, so you just made 1000% gain and are able to sell to close those call options. Then you unwind the rest of your trade and sell your $210 apple shares, probably for $200 or $198 or less (because there are few market participants that actually valued the shares for that high, the real bidders are at $200 and lower). This is hardly a discreet thing to do, so like I mentioned before, this is illegal in markets where actual company shares are involved and should not be attempted in stock markets but other markets won't have the same prohibitions, this is a general inefficiency in capital markets in general and certain derivatives pricing formulas. It is important to understand these things if you plan to participate in markets that claim to be fair. There is nothing novel about this sort of thing, and it is just a problem of allocating enough capital to do so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3958b9cb8e53f34f5db3249b09a9fa1e", "text": "No, this isn't possible, especially not when you're trading a highly liquid stock like Apple. When you put in your buy order at $210, any other traders that have open limit sell orders with the correct parameters, e.g. price and volume, will have their order(s) filled. This will occur before you can put in your own sell order and purchase your own shares because the other orders are listed on the order book first. In the US, many tax-sheltered accounts like IRA's have specific rules against self-dealing, which includes buying and selling assets with yourself, so such a transaction would be prohibited by definition. Although I'm not entirely sure if this applies to stocks, the limitation described in the first paragraph still applies regardless. If this were possible, rest assured that high-frequency traders would take advantage of this tactic to manipulate share prices. (I've heard critics say that this does occur, but I haven't researched it myself or seen any data about it)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4f3aface41cde6730131dcf5e91dbab", "text": "Yes it is possible but with a caveat. It is a pattern that can be observed in many lightly traded stocks that usually have a small market cap. I am talking about a stock that trades less than 2,000 shares per day on average.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab7c98d8fdb1024d1a43bf37be50d13c", "text": "The market maker will always compare the highest bid and the lowest ask. A trade will happen if the highest bid is at least as high as the lowest ask. Adding one share (or a million shares) at a higher asking price, here: $210 instead of $200, will not have any effect at all. Nobody will buy the share. Adding a bid for one share (or a million shares) at a higher bid price will trigger a sale. If you bid $210 for one share, you will pay $210 for one of the shares that were offered at $200. If you have $210 million in cash and add a bid for 1,000,000 AAPL at $210, you will pay $210 for all shares with an ask of $200.00, then $200.01, then $200.02 until you either bought all shares with an ask up to $210, or until you bought a million shares. With AAPL, you probably bid the price up to $201 with a million shares, so you made lots of people very happy while losing about 10 million dollars. So let's say this is a much smaller company. You have driven the share price up to $210, but there is nobody else bidding above $200. So nobody is going to buy your shares. Until some people think there is something going on and enter higher bids, but then some people will take advantage of this and ask lower than your $210. And there will be more people trying to make cash by selling their shares at a good price than people tricked into bidding over $200, so it is most likely that you lose out. (This completely ignores legality; attempting to do this would be market manipulation and in many countries illegal. I don't know if losing money in the process would protect you from criminal charges).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c47b52ea6e8fadc7db739bf74c559735", "text": "\"You will almost certainly be able to sell 10,000 shares at once. The question is a matter of price. If you sell \"\"at market\"\" then you may get a lower price for each \"\"batch\"\" of the stock sold (one person buys 50, another buys 200, another buys 1000 etc) at varying prices. Will you be able to execute a single order to sell them all at the same price at the same time? Nobody can say, and it's not really a function of the company size. The exchange has what's called \"\"open interest\"\" which roughly correlates to how many people have active orders in at a given price. This number is constantly changing alongside the bid and ask (particularly for active stocks). So let's say you have 10,000 shares and you want to sell them for $100 each. What you need is at least 10,000 in open interest at $100 bid to execute. By contrast let's say you issue a limit order at $100 for 10,000 shares. Your ask will stay outstanding at that price and you'll be filled at that price if there are enough buyers. I you have a limit sell order at $100 for 10,000 shares the strike price of the stock cannot go to $100.01 until all of your sell orders are filled.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7c4a0d571de62eb3406e5bca11eef0d", "text": "You can definitely affect the price - putting in a buy increases the demand for the stock, causing a permanent price move. Also if you hammer the market trying to execute too quickly you can hit offers that are out of the money and move the price temporarily before it stabilizes to its new equilibrium. True, as an individual investor your trades will be negligible in size and the effect will be nonexistent. But if you are a hedge fund putting in a buy for 5% of dtv, you can have a price impact. not 50%, but at least a handful of bps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a031a40d76d52dc0f058342027846fa7", "text": "That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4ca061d1169a2f105fa24f5d250c2d5", "text": "Any time a large order it placed for Buy, the sell side starts increasing as the demand of Buy has gone up. [Vice Versa is also true]. Once this orders gets fulfilled, the demand drops and hence the Sell price should also lower. Depending on how much was the demand / supply without your order, the price fluctuation would vary. For examply if before your order, for this particular share the normal volume is around 100's of shares then you order would spike things up quite a bit. However if for other share the normal volume is around 100000's then your order would not have much impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "104d9230bb7c2710413f9a8b3498be85", "text": "\"If you participate in an IPO, you specify how many shares you're willing to buy and the maximum price you're willing to pay. All the investors who are actually sold the shares get them at the same price, and the entity managing the IPO will generally try to sell the shares for the highest price they can get. Whether or not you actually get the shares is a function of how many your broker gets and how your broker distributes them - which can be completely arbitrary if your broker feels like it. The price that the market is willing to pay afterward is usually a little higher. To a certain extent, this is by design: a good deal for the shares is an incentive for the big (million/billion-dollar) financiers who will take on a good bit of risk buying very large positions in the company (which they can't flip at the higher price, because they'd flood the market with their shares and send the price down). If the stock soars 100% and sticks around that level, though, the underwriting bank isn't doing its job very well: Investors were willing to give the company a lot more money. It's not \"\"stealing\"\", but it's definitely giving the original owners of the company a raw deal. (Just to be clear: it's the existing company's owners who suffer, not any third party.) Of course, LinkedIn was estimated to IPO at $30 before they hiked it to $45, and plenty of people were skeptical about it pricing so high even then, so it's not like they didn't try. And there's a variety of analysis out there about why it soared so much on the first day - fewer shares offered, wild speculative bubbles, no one could get a hold of it to short-sell, et cetera. They probably could have IPO'd for more, but it's unlikely there was, say, $120/share financing available: just because one sucker will pay the price doesn't mean you can move all 7.84 million IPO shares for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbc616ead23979dbfb6b2f964398e6d1", "text": "In order: A seller of the stock (duh!). You don't know who or why this stock was sold. It could be any reason, and is of no concern of yours. It doesn't matter. Investors (pension funds, hedge funds, individual investors, employees, management) sell stock for many reasons: need cash, litigation, differing objectives, sector rotation, etc. To you, this does not matter. Yes, it does affect stock market prices: If you were not willing to buy that amount of shares, and there were no other buyers at that price, the seller would likely choose to lower the price offered. By your purchase, you are supporting the price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac087fe705c43712747a7c55daaad272", "text": "A lot of these answers are strong, but at the end of the day this question really boils down to: Do you want to own things? Duh, yes. It means you have: By this logic, you would expect aggregate stock prices to increase indefinitely. Whether the price you pay for that ownership claim is worth it at any given point in time is a completely different question entirely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e00b39ad638ff408ef177d9410a9e8", "text": "Typically a private company is hit by demand supply issues and cost of inputs. In effect at times the cost of input may go up, it cannot raise the prices, because this will reduce demand. However certain public sectors companies, typically in Oil & Engery segements the services are offered by Public sector companies, and the price they charge is governed by Regulatory authorities. In essence the PG&E, the agreement for price to customers would be calculated as cost of inputs to PG&E, Plus Expenses Plus 11.35% Profit. Thus the regulated price itself governs that the company makes atleast 11.35% profit year on year. Does this mean that the shares are good buy? Just to give an example, say the price was $100 at face value, So essentially by year end logically you would have made 111.35/-. Assuming the company did not pay dividend ... Now lets say you began trading this share, there would be quite a few people who would say I am ready to pay $200 and even if I get 11.35 [on 200] it still means I have got ~6% return. Someone may be ready to pay $400, it still gives ~3% ... So in short the price of the stock would keep changing depending how the market percieves the value that a company would return. If the markets are down or the sentiments are down on energy sectors, the prices would go down. So investing in PG&E is not a sure shot way of making money. For actual returns over the years see the graph at http://www.pgecorp.com/investors/financial_reports/annual_report_proxy_statement/ar_html/2011/index.htm#CS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc511b7863a47d97d542d26431eeaa8d", "text": "\"You can do several things: After the fact: If you believe the stock will go up, you can buy more stock now, it's what's called \"\"averaging\"\". So, you bought 100 at $10, now it's at $7. To gain money from your original investment it needs to raise to over $10. But if you really think it'll go up, you can buy and average. So you buy, say, 100 more stock at $7, now you have 200 shares at $8.50 average so you gain money on your investment when the stock goes over $8.50 instead of $10. Of course, you risk losing even more money if the stock keeps going down. Before the fact: When you buy stock, set 'triggers'. In most trading houses you can set automatic triggers to fire on conditions you set. When you buy 100 shares at $10, you can set a trigger to automatically sell the 100 shares if it drops below $9, so you limit your losses to 10% (for example).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36347183e3c2c8963ed56ec4fa8468dc", "text": "If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df968b0dad2a0f72bf0e625b8d5e3fa0", "text": "\"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac18a23cf30f659b257d22786cc092b5", "text": "\"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (\"\"ownership\"\") to people who buy stocks from it. It's not \"\"ownership\"\" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way. You own part of the company. If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner. In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing). After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company. The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock. The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership. If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings. Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future. What do the prospects look like for this industry? A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific. Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate? Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive? If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced. So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a \"\"part owner\"\". Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4c78c4740acac8a3570672723509ad4", "text": "looking over some historical data I cannot really a find a case where a stock went from $0.0005 to $1 it almost seem that once a stock crosses a minimum threshold the stock never goes back up. Is there any truth to that? That would be a 2000X (200,000%) increase in the per-share value which would be extraordinary. When looking at stock returns you have to look at percentage returns, not dollar returns. A gain of $1 would be minuscule for Berkshire-Hathaway stock but would be astronomical for this stock,. If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up? Not necessarily. The price of a stock is a measure of expected future performance, not necessarily past performance. If the earnings had been more that the market expected, then the price might go up, but if the market sees it as an anomaly that won't continue then there may not be enough buyers to move the stock up. looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? If you can afford to lose all $24 then no, it won't hurt. But I wouldn't expect that $24 to turn into anything higher than about $100. At best it might be an interesting learning experience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a212b7e101d08456f62747b65e3c5a", "text": "The future shares will be fewer in number, yet have claim to less cash in the bank. All in all, there's little reason the shares would rise in value. Say there are 1M shares, trading at $10. Market cap is $10M of course. Now, there happens to be $2M cash in the bank so each share had about $2 cash. By taking the $2M and buying 200K shares, 800K shares remain, but why would you think they'd be valued at $12.50? The same $10 value per share is now an $8M market cap as $2M has been disbursed, no less so than if it were given out in a dividend.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d96eada018190b559af05e3c817086ae", "text": "Consider the case where a stock has low volume. If the stock normally has a few hundred shares trade each minute and you want to buy 10,000 shares then chances are you'll move the market by driving up the price to find enough sellers so that you can get all those shares. Similarly, if you sell way more than the typical volume, this can be an issue.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
04561a769dc2329ac81aa8e95c6360f4	Are spot market ,regular market and ready market same in stock trading if not then what is the difference?	[ { "docid": "f8192a8b59e7dc34d8ba75d13043d01f", "text": "\"So, the term \"\"ready market\"\" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A \"\"spot market\"\" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term \"\"futures market\"\"). So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date. The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity. In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it. The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money. That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security. It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt. There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference. For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them. So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112. That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock. If the stock drops to $100 and I \"\"cover my short\"\" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker. I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short. A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ebf74e54b59ea99d8e2245b5c5a37902", "text": "\"With stocks, you can buy or sell. If you sell first, that's called 'shorting.' As in \"\"I think linkedin is too high, I'm going to short it.\"\" With options, the terminology is different, the normal process is to buy to open/sell to close, but if you were shorting the option itself, you would first sell to open, i.e you are selling a position to start it, effectively selling it short. Eventually, you may close it out, by buying to close. Options trading is not for the amateur. If you plan to trade, study first and be very cautious.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22ae57c52676b06d852420a2c9538018", "text": "There are several reasons it is not recommended to trade stocks pre- or post-market, meaning outside of RTH (regular trading hours). Since your question is not very detailed I have to assume you trade with a time horizon of at least more than a day, meaning you do not trade intra-day. If this is true, all of the above points are a non-issue for you and a different set of points becomes important. As a general rule, using (3) is the safest regardless of what and how you trade because you get price guarantee in trade for execution guarantee. In the case of mid to longer term trading (1 week+) any of those points is viable, depending on how you want to do things, what your style is and what is the most comfortable for you. A few remarks though: (2) are market orders, so if the open is quite the ride and you are in the back of the execution queue, you can get significant slippage. (1) may require (live) data of the post-market session, which is often not easy to come by for the entire US stock universe. Depending on your physical execution method (phone, fax, online), you may lack accurate information of the post-market. If you want to execute orders based on RTH and only want to do that after hours because of personal schedule constraints, this is not really important. Personally I would always recommend (3), independent of the use case because it allows you more control over your orders and their fills. TL;DR: If you are trading long-term it does not really matter. If you go down to the intra-day level of holding time, it becomes relevant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7205cbaecf85917426224c0955e77ce", "text": "\"For any large company, there's a lot of activity, and if you sell at \"\"market\"\" your buy or sell will execute in seconds within a penny or two of the real-time \"\"market\"\" price. I often sell at \"\"limit\"\" a few cents above market, and those sell within 20 minutes usually. For much smaller companies, obviously you are beholden to a buyer also wanting that stock, but those are not on major exchanges. You never see whose buy order you're selling into, that all happens behind the curtain so to speak.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84c11bc8a38593d8ae61321f8735ba91", "text": "I think it all boils down to which is your priority. So it all depends. People that want the stock sooOoooo badly will definitely go for the market order.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c57ae3b0b5c883e5b77529702c8817c0", "text": "To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13d405f87b222d8e581eb027e754892", "text": "\"An attempt at a simple answer for the normal investor: A normal investor buys stock then later sells that stock. (This is known as \"\"going long\"\", as opposed to \"\"going short\"\"). For the normal investor, a stop order (of either kind) is only used when selling. A stop-loss sell order (or stop sell) is used to sell your stock when it has fallen too much in price, and you don't want to suffer more losses. If the stock is at $50, you could enter a stop sell at $40, which means if the stock ever falls to $40 or lower, your stock will be sold at whatever price is available (e.g. $35). A stop-loss limit sell order (or stop limit sell) is the same, except you are also saying \"\"but don't sell for less than my limit price\"\". So you can enter a stop limit sell at $40 with a limit of $39, meaning that if the stock falls to $40, you will then have a limit order in effect to sell the stock at $39 or higher. Thus your stock will never be sold at $35 or any value below $39, but of course, if the stock falls fast from $40 to $35, your limit sell at $39 will not be done and you will be left still owning the stock (worth at that moment $35, say).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ae06451df0a095d66d02dd73776f07a", "text": "\"Trading on specific ECNs is the easy part - you simply specify the order routing in advance. You are not buying or selling the exact same shares. Shares are fungible - so if I simultaneously buy one share and sell another share, my net share position is zero - even if those trades don't settle until T+3. PS \"\"The Nasdaq\"\" isn't really an exchange in the way that the CME, or other order-driven markets are. It's really just a venue to bring market makers together. It's almost like \"\"the internet,\"\" as in, when you buy something from Amazon, you're not buying it from \"\"the internet,\"\" but it was the internet that made your transaction with Amazon possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "005ae68f6b6c32c422f0c8118e17c5a7", "text": "There is no difference. When dealing with short positions, talking about percentages become very tricky since they no longer add up to 100%. What does the 50% in your example mean? Unless there's some base amount (like total amount of the portfolio, then the percentages are meaningless. What matters when dealing with long and short positions is the net total - meaning if you are long 100 shares on one stock trade and short 50 shares on another, then you are net long 50 shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3610bca0f2f0662da44ba3a89619cd30", "text": "\"But I don't see how it's any different than buying a stock at a low price and holding on to it for some months. Based on your question, I would say the difference is time. Day trading by its nature is a 6-hour endeavor. If you buy low and are planning to sell high, then you only have a few hours to make this happen. As a previous poster mentioned, there is a lot of \"\"white noise\"\" that occurs on a weekly/daily/hourly/min basis. Long-term investors have the time to wait it out. Although, as a side note, if you were a buy-and-hold investor from the 1960s-early 1980s, then buy and hold was not very good. Is it just the psychological/addictive aspect of it? This is the biggest reason. Day trading is stressful and stress can cause financially destructive decisions such as over-leveraging, over-trading, etc. Why is day trading stressful? Because you are managing hundreds to thousands of trades a year. When combined with the lack of time in a day to make moves, it becomes stressful. Also, many day traders do it full time. Which adds to the pressure to be correct and to be incredible at money managment. A lot of buy-and-hold investors have full time jobs and may only check their positions every month or so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f47dd54afc18d54b9d4d6befccbf9e16", "text": "A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price. Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45. It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price. The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit. This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed. But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price. As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfa933229cc96a45eb5007baee03701a", "text": "The difference between the two numbers is that the market size of a particular product is expressed as an annual number ($10 million per year, in your example). The market cap of a stock, on the other hand, is a long-term valuation of the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8677ffa9c1ac3a3f5bca189a6db0e873", "text": "You cannot trade in pre-IPO shares of companies like Facebook without being an accredited investor. If a website or company doesn't mention that requirement, they are a scam. A legitimate market for private shares is SecondMarket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "276f5383165d301a1348512cce64e67a", "text": "Forex vs Day Trading: These can be one and the same, as most people who trade forex do it as day trading. Forex is the instrument you are trading and day trading is the time frame you are doing it in. If your meaning from your question was comparing trading forex vs stocks, then it depends on a number of things. Forex is more liquid so most professional traders prefer it as it can be easier to get in and out without being gapped. However, if you are not trading large amounts of money and you stay away from more volatile stocks, this should not matter too much. It may also depend on what you understand more and prefer to trade. You need to be comfortable with what you are trading. If on the other hand you are referring to day trading vs longer term trading and/or investing, then this can depend largely on the instrument you are trading and the time frame you are more comfortable with. Forex is used more for shorter term trading, from day trading to having a position open for a couple of days. Stocks on the other hand can be day traded to traded over days, weeks, months or years. It is much more common to have positions open for longer periods with stocks. Other instruments like commodities, can also be traded over different time frames. The shorter the time frame you trade the higher risk involved as you have to make quick decisions and be happy with making a lot of smaller gains with the potential to make a large loss if things go wrong. It is best once again to chose a time frame you are comfortable with. I tend to trade Australian stocks as I know them well and am comfortable with them. I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues). By doing this I avoid the daily market noise and let my profits run and keep my losses small. No matter what instrument you end up trading and the time frame you choose to trade in, you should always have a tested trading plan and a risk management strategy in place. These are the areas you should first gain knowledge in to further your pursuits in trading.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80bc55cf82d2add4d1ecf35cd96ad431", "text": "\"If the price used to be 2.50 but by the time you get in an order it's 2.80, you're going to have to pay 2.80. You can't say, \"\"I want to buy it at the price from an hour ago\"\". If you could, everybody would wait for the price to go up, then buy at the old price and have an instant guaranteed profit. Well, except that when you tried to sell, I suppose the buyer could say, \"\"I want to pay the lower price from last July\"\". So no, you always buy or sell at the current price. If you submit an order after the markets close, your broker should buy the stock for you as soon as possible the next morning. There's no strict queue. There are thousands of brokers out there, they don't take turns. So if your broker has 1000 orders and you are number 1000 on his list, while some other broker has 2 orders and number 1 is someone else wanting to buy the same stock, then even if you got your order in first, the other guy will probably get the first buy. LIFO and FIFO refer to any sort of list or queue, but don't really make sense here. When the market opens a broker has a list of orders he received overnight, which he might think of as a queue. He presumably works his way down the list. But whether he follows a strict and simple first-in-first-out, or does biggest orders first, or does buys for stocks he expects to go up today and sells for stocks he expects to go down today first, or what, I don't know. Does anybody on this forum know, are there rules that say brokers have to go through the overnight orders FIFO, or what is the common practice?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "861b30cbf96958570789286d2028629b", "text": "\"For some situations, an MBA can be overrated in the sense that given the cost of time and money, it isn't going to be a great return in some cases. There can be tens of thousands of dollars and a couple of years to get an MBA that some people believes should automatically make them worth $x more in their salary and life should be simple. I'd likely inquire as to what expectations do you have for what an MBA will do for you. Are you expecting to make connections in getting the degree? Are you expecting to learn about how to run a business from the coursework? Are you expecting something else? Depending on what you are expecting, I could see MBA as being anything from a great choice to a lousy choice for people. As noted by Pete Belford's comment, an MBA from a \"\"degree mill\"\" would be all but worthless. Where you go can reflect the value of the education as some universities are known for their program about this such as Ivy League schools.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7220808e6a012532a8944a7e71405051	What are the gains from more liquidity in ETF for small investors?	[ { "docid": "593d3f385dbb52c6f01b17d9c60e39a2", "text": "One of the often cited advantages of ETFs is that they have a higher liquidity and that they can be traded at any time during the trading hours. On the other hand they are often proposed as a simple way to invest private funds for people that do not want to always keep an eye on the market, hence the intraday trading is mostly irrelevant for them. I am pretty sure that this is a subjective idea. The fact is you may buy GOOG, AAPL, F or whatever you wish(ETF as well, such as QQQ, SPY etc.) and keep them for a long time. In both cases, if you do not want to keep an on the market it is ok. Because, if you keep them it is called investment(the idea is collecting dividends etc.), if you are day trading then is it called speculation, because you main goal is to earn by buying and selling, of course you may loose as well. So, you do not care about dividends or owning some percent of the company. As, ETFs are derived instruments, their volatility depends on the volatility of the related shares. I'm wondering whether there are secondary effects that make the liquidity argument interesting for private investors, despite not using it themselves. What would these effects be and how do they impact when compared, for example, to mutual funds? Liquidity(ability to turn cash) could create high volatility which means high risk and high reward. From this point of view mutual funds are more safe. Because, money managers know how to diversify the total portfolio and manage income under any market conditions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a42ec05c8f6753028f20bb6de505d2f7", "text": "ETFs are both liquid (benefits active traders) and a simple way for people to invest in funds even if they don't have the minimum balance needed to invest in a mutual fund (EDIT: in which purchases are resolved at the end of the trading day). One big difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you must buy ETFs in whole units, whereas you can add $100 to a mutual fund and the fund will determine -- usually to 4 decimal places -- how many shares you've purchased.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "667cdf9a802e8ebd4325173d502e32f5", "text": "In my opinion, if you are doing long-term investing, this is a non-issue. The difference of hours in being able to trade an ETF during the day vs. only being able to trade a traditional mutual fund at day-end is irrelevant if you are holding the investment for a long time. If you are engaging in day trading, market timing, or other advanced/controversial trading practices, then I suppose it could make a difference. For the way I invest (index funds, long-term, set-it-and-forget-it), ETFs have no advantage over traditional mutual funds.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f3ea138a007df8c0daf625f11ca5d011", "text": "OK, VERY glad you get that idea! The problem with the ETF is: it's the monkeys-throwing-darts method. If the average (dollar-weighted) member stock in the ETF goes up, you win, but if half of them go under, and half succeed, over some time periods you will lose (and win over others). I guess my POV is: if you can't do serious research into the expected success of an individual company, maybe it's too risky to even try betting on the whole group. YMMV. The problem with your investment plan is: you are depending on luck, and the assumption the group will increase in value over your investment period. I prefer research over hope.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5671482527712efcef940b6b31d2b8fb", "text": "I'd think that liquidity and speed are prioritized (even over retail brokers and in come cases over PoP) for institutional traders who by default have large positions. When the going gets tough, these guys are out and the small guys - trading through average retail brokers - are the ones left holding the empty bag.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6d3eca19328b083b8a1a91f52924c39", "text": "Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a71be0c4fad79ee79b2a3bf10b56110", "text": "\"What do you mean by \"\"handful\"\" and \"\"VERY well-funded\"\"? There are a plenty of HFT shops out there that do just fine. But what zenwarrior said before about the effect of fund size is especially true for HFT, since market capacity is usually the limiting factor when making trades.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab3953e4aa133925a57bb0277db2538d", "text": "Though a fan of ETFs (esp. high volume commission-free ones) recently a single, new fund VQT appeared on my radar of interest. It's based on dynamic hedging that has sort of build-in diversification and adapts to the market climate, pulling in and out varying amounts from cash, the S&P 500 and volatility futures based on VIX. I've been Long VQT and it's followed the S&P500 during good times, though not at far, but crucially disconnected with much milder losses when the general market was nose diving. You can lookup and compare to SPY at http://finance.google.com Not trying to give investment advice, in case that upsets some rules.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "758503f6ed2ede9e61b36115d5228922", "text": "See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value .", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daff22609d39d7ef7c465090f1d9b402", "text": "\"Are you talking long-term institutional or retail investors? Long-term retail* investors look for orderly markets, the antithesis of HFT business models, which have a direct correlation between market volatility and profits. To a lesser extent, some \"\"dumb money\"\"/\"\"muppet\"\" institutionals do as well. HFT firms tout they supply liquidity into markets, when in fact the opposite is true. Yes, HFTs supply liquidity, but only when the liquidity's benefits runs in their direction. That is, they are applying the part of the liquidity definition that mentions \"\"high trading activity\"\", and conveniently ignoring the part that simultaneously requires \"\"easily buying or selling an asset\"\". If HFT's are the new exchange floor, then they need to be formalized as such, and become bound to market maker responsibilities. If they are actually supplying liquidity, like real Designated Market Makers in the NYSE for example, they become responsible to supply a specified liquidity for specified ticker symbols in exchange for their informational advantage on those tickers. The indisputable fact is that HFT cannot exist at their current profit levels without the information advantage they gain with preferential access to tick-by-tick data unavailable to investors who cannot afford the exchange fees ($1M per exchange 10 years ago, more now). Restrict the entire market, including HFTs, to only second-by-second price data without the tick-by-tick depth, and they won't do so well. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking HFTs per se; I think they are a marvelous development, so long as they really do \"\"supply liquidity\"\". Right now, they aren't doing so, and especially in an orderly manner. If you want retail investors to keep out of the water as they are doing now, by all means let HFT (and regulatory capture, and a whole host of other financial service industry ills) run as they are. There are arguments to be made about \"\"only let the professionals play the market\"\", where there is no role for retail and anyone who doesn't know how to play the long-term investment game needs to get out of the kitchen. But if you are making such an argument, come out and say so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cda4e508cbccdc13fb6c2499982293b", "text": "You are correct about the first two questions. At the time it was last measured those were the percent invested in the Basic Materials sector for the ETF and its benchmark. Note, this ETF will be significantly different from its benchmark as it is an equal-weight index rather than the more common capitalization-weighted index. Meaning that this ETF could have materially different performance from its benchmark. The third column is the average sector weights of all the ETFs in Morningstar's Large Blend category. These are ETFs that generally invest in a broad collection of large U.S. stocks and (weighted?) average of all of them will be generally fairly close to the benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c630f8c6a118525e354eb02b4005abf8", "text": "No ETN or ETF yet. There are beta funds, that aim to track the market. What's really needed is a liquid market for cat risk trading/transfer, enabling users to buy protection, or take the other side. You can write cat swaps, so derivative forms, including ILW's or with parametric triggers. But these aren't liquid at all yet. Cat bonds are most liquid, but it dries up pretty quickly when events threaten as there's no true hedging market yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "02cf1973bc8bfdb5930a3f0b20037ecd", "text": "By exploiting institutional investors, HFT does hurt small investors. People with pension, mutual, and index funds get smaller returns. Endowment funds are also going to get hurt which hurts hospitals, schools, charities, and other institutions that work for the public good. I agree with you though. At this point we would likely be just arguing semantics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e3309d191d613404bd65a9a8a47dd1f", "text": "If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd9d434a2adaf3a25464738a3a6b48e3", "text": "Fair enough. I would imagine the ETF could get a better option pricing if that were the case, plus liquidity and counterpart risk concerns but your point is well taken. Serves me right to shoot my mouth off on something I do not do (short). Speaking of which, do you do a lot of shorting? Cover positions or speculation?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d2b124795bc36a1421cb615e4b3ab19", "text": "\"Can you easily stomach the risk of higher volatility that could come with smaller stocks? How certain are you that the funds wouldn't have any asset bloat that could cause them to become large-cap funds for holding to their winners? If having your 401(k) balance get chopped in half over a year doesn't give you any pause or hesitation, then you have greater risk tolerance than a lot of people but this is one of those things where living through it could be interesting. While I wouldn't be against the advice, I would consider caution on whether or not the next 40 years will be exactly like the averages of the past or not. In response to the comments: You didn't state the funds so I how I do know you meant index funds specifically? Look at \"\"Fidelity Low-Priced Stock\"\" for a fund that has bloated up in a sense. Could this happen with small-cap funds? Possibly but this is something to note. If you are just starting to invest now, it is easy to say, \"\"I'll stay the course,\"\" and then when things get choppy you may not be as strong as you thought. This is just a warning as I'm not sure you get my meaning here. Imagine that some women may think when having a child, \"\"I don't need any drugs,\"\" and then the pain comes and an epidural is demanded because of the different between the hypothetical and the real version. While you may think, \"\"I'll just turn the cheek if you punch me,\"\" if I actually just did it out of the blue, how sure are you of not swearing at me for doing it? Really stop and think about this for a moment rather than give an answer that may or may not what you'd really do when the fecal matter hits the oscillator. Couldn't you just look at what stocks did the best in the last 10 years and just buy those companies? Think carefully about what strategy are you using and why or else you could get tossed around as more than a few things were supposed to be the \"\"sure thing\"\" that turned out to be incorrect like the Dream Team of Long-term Capital Management, the banks that were too big to fail, the Japanese taking over in the late 1980s, etc. There are more than a few times where things started looking one way and ended up quite differently though I wonder if you are aware of this performance chasing that some will do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5474673d5aa76b4f48ff13ccc540e477", "text": "\"Is option trading permitted in the account? Most 401(k) do not permit this. 1 - it means none traded today. 2 - there are 50 outstanding contracts. Each one has a guy who is long and a guy who is short. 3 - not really, it might depend on the stock. 4 - no. With commissions so low, and the inherent leverage of options, one contract reflecting 100 shares of the underlying stock, the minimum is what you can sleep soundly with. 5 - because GLD does not reflect precisely 1/10 oz of gold's price. If you look at the prospectus, it reads \"\"The investment objective of the Trust is for the Shares to reflect the performance of the price of gold bullion, less the Trust’s expenses.\"\" Since there are no dividends to take expenses from, the GLD price will erode by .4% each year compared to the price of 1/10oz gold.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2eb5c9d745da2fe15810ffd0b2fd4451", "text": "Hedging - You have an investment and are worried that the price might drop in the near future. You don't want to sell as this will realise a capital gain for which you may have to pay capital gains tax. So instead you make an investment in another instrument (sometimes called insurance) to offset falls in your investment. An example may be that you own shares in XYZ. You feel the price has risen sharply over the last month and is due for a steep fall. So you buy some put option over XYZ. You pay a small premium and if the price of XYZ falls you will lose money on the shares but will make money on the put option, thus limiting your losses. If the price continues to go up you will only lose the premium you paid for the option (very similar to an insurance policy). Diversification - This is when you may have say $100,000 to invest and spread your investments over a portfolio of shares, some units in a property fund and some bonds. So you are spreading your risks and returns over a range of products. The idea is if one stock or one sector goes down, you will not lose a large portion of your investment, as it is unlikely that all the different sectors will all go down at the same time.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9f9599e0bb17f50410fe76ed91c8b367	If my put option reaches expiration on etrade and I don't log in to the site will it automatically exercise if it's in the money or be a total loss?	[ { "docid": "9fbfd3a478090786ec45cb3ec593c10c", "text": "\"There are a number of choices: I prefer Dilip's response \"\"Have you tried asking etrade?\"\" No offense, but questions about how a particular broker handles certain situations are best asked of the broker. Last - one should never enter into any trade (especially options trades) without understanding the process in advance. I hope you are asking this before trading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74206a17e0eb05d721f1a05df3c2c69a", "text": "I have held an in the money long position on an option into expiration, on etrade, and nothing happened. (Scalping expiring options - high risk) The option expired a penny or two ITM, and was not worth exercising, nor did I have the purchasing power to exercise it. (AAPL) From etrade's website: Here are a few things to keep in mind about exercises and assignments: Equity options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. For example, a September $25 call will be automatically exercised if the underlying security's closing price is $25.01 or higher at expiration. If the closing price is below $25.01, you would need to call an ETRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1 with specific instructions for exercising the option. You would also need to call an ETRADE Securities broker if the closing price is higher than $25.01 at expiration and you do not wish to exercise the call option. Index options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. Options that are out of the money will expire worthless. You may request to exercise American style options anytime prior to expiration. A request not to exercise options may be made only on the last trading day prior to expiration. If you'd like to exercise options or submit do-not-exercise instructions, call an ETRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1. You won't be charged our normal fee for broker-assisted trades, but the regular options commission will apply. Requests are processed on a best-efforts basis. When equity options are exercised or assigned, you'll receive a Smart Alert message letting you know. You can also check View Orders to see which stock you bought or sold, the number of shares, and the strike price. Notes: If you do not have sufficient purchasing power in your account to accept the assignment or exercise, your expiring options positions may be closed, without notification, on the last trading day for the specific options series. Additionally, if your expiring position is not closed and you do not have sufficient purchasing power, ETRADE Securities may submit do-not-exercise instructions without notification. Find out more about options expiration dates.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9b4d93b9dbd732db251e4c0d6cecbf1e", "text": "You haven't said why you think you will gain at $41, but the graph never lies. Take it one piece at a time: At $41, your stock will lose a big chunk of value. Your short calls will expire. Your puts will gain a bit of value. The stock's loss outweighs the option gains.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2424c6baddb65bae9cef52f2015b2a94", "text": "\"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "711eebb53074f9f9123789144bcbd020", "text": "Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6e40c1fea4268cb12f780d66f98e66", "text": "Yes When exercising a stock option you will be buying the stock at the strike price so you will be putting up your money, if you lose that money you can declare it as a loss like any other transaction. So if the stock is worth $1 and you have 10 options with a strike at $0.50 you will spend $500 when you exercise your options. If you hold those shares and the company is then worth $0 you lost $500. I have not verified my answer so this is solely from my understanding of accounting and finance. Please verify with your accountant to be sure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc1d9c53e06aa2581dd26be0b3020fd1", "text": "This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181", "text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]\|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]\|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]\|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]\|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c21fb4527f34f61c174060f30945db72", "text": "Check the rules with your broker. Usually if it expires in the money, the broker would exercise it. But you need to check with your broker about their rules on the matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81f3d56dedc5648e0d8941eb26dafb26", "text": "The time value decay is theoretically constant. In reality, it is driven by supply and demand, just like everything else in the market. For instance, if a big earnings announcement is coming out after the close for the day, you may see little or no time decay in the price of the options during the day before. Also, while in theory options have a set value as related to the trading price of the underlying security, that does not mean there will always be a buyer willing to pay a premium as they come close to expiration (in the last few minutes). You can't forget to account for the transaction fees associated with buying the options, or the risk factor involved. It is rare, but there are times I've actually had to sell in the money calls at a penny or two LESS than they're actually worth at the time just to unload them in the last few minutes before the market closed on expiration day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfe07a5e0fcc828bbcbcfe452ecd4d1b", "text": "The risk situation of the put option is the same whether you own the stock or not. You risk $5 and stand to gain 0 to $250 in the period before expiration (say $50 if the stock reaches $200 and you sell). Holding the stock or not changes nothing about that. What is different is the consideration as to whether or not to buy a put when you own the stock. Without an option, you are holding a $250 asset (the stock), and risking that money. Should you sell and miss opportunity for say $300? Or hold and risk loss of say $50 of your $250? So you have $250 at risk, but can lock in a sale price of $245 for say a month by buying a put, giving you opportunity for the $300 price in that month. You're turning a risk of losing $250 (or maybe only $50 more realistically) into a risk of losing only $5 (versus the price your stock would get today).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1b15d3c89a8523b3646b0385fbb85f7", "text": "\"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd46aa9ae5664fcf062195f4dc230bcc", "text": "Yes, if the call expires worthless, leaving you with stock. Then you can exercise your put when the stock goes below put strike price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "539e30831b3c5d17072413de30b2217d", "text": "An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date. The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike. Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out. As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e9f6a7b5d010f000c388229f6abdd0a", "text": "\"There is a white paper on \"\"The weekend effect of equity options\"\" it is a good paper and shows that (for the most part) option values do lose money from Friday to Monday. Which makes sense because it is getting closer to expiration. Of course this not something that can be counted on 100%. If there is some bad news and the stock opens down on a Monday the puts would have increased and the calls decreased in value. Article Summary (from the authors): \"\"We find that returns on options on individual equities display markedly lower returns over weekends (Friday close to Monday close) relative to any other day of the week. These patterns are observed both in unhedged and delta-hedged positions, indicating that the effect is not the result of a weekend effect in the underlying securities. We find even stronger weekend effects in implied volatilities, but only after an adjustment to quote implied volatilities in terms of trading days rather than calendar days.\"\" \"\"Our results hold for puts and calls over a wide range of maturities and strike prices, for both equally weighted portfolios and for portfolios weighted by the market value of open interest, and also for samples that include only the most liquid options in the market. We find no evidence of a weekly seasonal in bid-ask spreads, trading volume, or open interest that could drive the effect. We also find little evidence that weekend returns are driven by higher levels of risk over the weekend. \"\"The effect is particularly strong over expiration weekends, and it is also present to a lesser degree over mid-week holidays. Finally, the effect is stronger when the TED spread and market volatility are high, which we interpret as providing support for a limits to arbitrage explanation for the persistence of the effect.\"\" - Christopher S. Jones & Joshua Shemes You can read more about this at this link for Memphis.edu\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8c653d8c9b0495f0733d0c68ed5ec78", "text": "No, if you are trading options to profit solely off the option and not own the underlying, you should trade it away because it costs more to exercise:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06fecd6d3adef976fa7230cdaf8d5f75", "text": "At the higher level - yes. The value of an OTM (out of the money) option is pure time value. It's certainly possible that when the stock price gets close to that strike, the value of that option may very well offer you a chance to sell at a profit. Look at any OTM strike bid/ask and see if you can find the contract low for that option. Most will show that there was an opportunity to buy it lower at some point in the past. Your trade. Ask is meaningless when you own an option. A thinly traded one can be bid $0 /ask $0.50. What is the bid on yours?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
11c120dbc1d7af254d7d7f1e021f8669	How can my dad (grandpa) transfer shares to my 2 year old son?	[ { "docid": "1db35e8bb017eb451eefdecf893b4c9d", "text": "\"The most common way to handle this in the US is with a UTMA account. UTMA is the Uniform Transfers / Gifts to Minors Act (\"\"UTMA\"\" or \"\"UGMA\"\") which is a standard model law that most states have passed for special kinds of accounts. Once you open an account, anyone can contribute. Usually parents and grandparents will contribute $13,000 or less per year to make it a tax free transfer, but you can transfer more. The account itself would just be a standard brokerage account of any sort, but the title of the account would include your son's name, the applicable law depending on your state, and the name of the custodian who would control the account until your son turned 18. When your son does turn 18, the money is his. Until then, the money is his, but you control how it's invested. I'm a huge fan of Vanguard for UTMA/UGMAs. You may prefer to diversify a bit away from one company by selling the GE shares and buying an index mutual fund so that your child's education is not jeopardized by a rogue trader bringing down General Electric sometime in the next decade...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257b39ff066fa883fd2ac3d6524a037f", "text": "A UTMA may or may not fit your situation. The main drawbacks to a UTMA account is that it will count against your child for financial aid (it counts as the child's asset). The second thing to consider is that taxes aren't deferred like in a 529 plan. The last problem of course is that when he turns 18 he gets control of the account and can spend the money on random junk (which may or may not be important to you). A 529 plan has a few advantages over a UTMA account. The grandparents can open the account with your son as the beneficiary and the money doesn't show up on financial aid for college (under current law which could change of course). Earnings grow tax free which will net you more total growth. You can also contribute substantially more without triggering the gift tax ~$60k. Also many states provide a state tax break for contributing to the state sponsored 529 plan. The account owner would be the grandparents so junior can't spend the money on teenage junk. The big downside to the 529 is the 10% penalty if the money isn't used for higher education. The flip side is that if the money is left for 20 years you will also have additional growth from the 20 years of tax free growth which may be a wash depending on your tax bracket and the tax rates in effect over those 20 years.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3ff8f21e99d612524de391740ba0928c", "text": "Two methods: 1: Become really close friend with Marky. Probably have to take a bullet for him or something. 2: Become a major client of the investment bank that will launch the IPO (most likely Goldman), and the bank will offer you some shares before the IPO. In order to become a major client you probably have to spend several millions per year in transaction fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "560638c8ad7f70d280c4a628437bee49", "text": "\"I hate to point this out, but have you heard of this guy Trump, or Warren Buffet (although his son seems to be very competent and grounded, to some degree). The US is also plagued with this problem where family companies remain so through leadership, they also tend to fail at greater rates than our publicly ran companies. I suppose Samsung is public company, but why having stock on the open KRX doesn’t lead to better leadership is beyond me to understand? EDIT:My bad for bringing Trump into this, it was meant as an example of wealth distribution which translates into capacity for business options, and he's well known. However you guys need to do some more research before throwing shade, Howard Buffet has taken over Berkshire Hathaway in a non-executive role, while also holding board positions on a multitude of companies in which BH own significant portions including coca-cola. I wasn't pointing out Warren is incompetent in any way, just he passed the reins off to family too in many ways. \"\"In December 2011, Warren Buffett told CBS News that he would like his son Howard to succeed him as Berkshire Hathaway's non-executive chairman.\"\" Apologies for lack of clarity in my statement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fd0badcf019badaaa17e36fff9fa597", "text": "Pool their money into my own brokerage account and simply split the gains/losses proportional to the amount of money that we've each contributed to the account. I'm wary of this approach due to the tax implications and perhaps other legal issues so I'd appreciate community insight here. You're right to be wary. You might run into gift tax issues, as well as income tax liability and appropriation of earnings. Not a good idea at all. Don't do this. Have them set up their own brokerage account and have them give me the login credentials and I manage the investments for them. This is obviously the best approach from a tracking and tax perspective, but harder for me to manage; to be honest I'm already spending more time than I want to managing my own investments, so option 1 really appeals to me if the drawbacks aren't prohibitive. That would also require you to be a licensed financial adviser, at least to the best of my understanding. Otherwise there's a lot of issues with potential liability (if you make investments that lose money - you might be required to repay the losses). You should do this only with a proper legal and tax advice - from an attorney and/or CPA/EA licensed in your state. There are proper ways to do this (limited partnership or LLC, for example), but you have to cover your ass-ets with proper operating agreements in place that have to be reviewed by legal counsel of each of the members/partners,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5dbb47ed381e77ebd0388498fc1456ac", "text": "For this rollover, there are no restrictions of age/income/etc. You need to know - the transfer must be direct, i.e. if you get a physical check, it should be payable not to you, but to the new custodian (broker) for your benefit. Direct is preferable and faster. The assets may not be transferable 'in kind.' This phrase simply means that you may move the value, but if the assets are not shares that are held by the public, but special 401(k) class shares, they must be liquidated before moving, and moved as cash. This is a risk people with large accounts take should the market move dramatically during the time they are liquidated, and why, for them, I suggest doing it piecemeal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23f2a228c3c25affe0b9da5c43a3fc75", "text": "\"BigCo is selling new shares and receives the money from Venturo. If Venturo is offering $250k for 25% of the company, then the valuation that they are agreeing on is a value of $1m for the company after the new investment is made. If Jack is the sole owner of one million shares before the new investment, then BigCo sells 333,333 shares to Venturo for $250k. The new total number of shares of BigCo is 1,333,333; Venturo holds 25%, and Jack holds 75%. The amount that Jack originally invested in the company is irrelevant. At the moment of the sale, the Venturo and Jack agree that Jack's stake is worth $750k. The value of Jack's stake may have gone up, but he owes no capital gains tax, because he hasn't realized any of his gains yet. Jack hasn't sold any of his stake. You might think that he has, because he used to hold 100% and now he holds 75%. However, the difference is that the company is worth more than was before the sale. So the value of his stake was unchanged immediately before and after the sale. Jack agrees to this because the company needs this additional capital in order to meet its potential. (See \"\"Why is stock dilution legal?\"\") For further explanation and another example of this, see the question \"\"If a startup receives investment money, does the startup founder/owner actually gain anything?\"\" Your other scenario, where Venturo purchases existing shares directly from Jack, is not practical in this situation. If Jack sells his existing shares, you are correct that the company does not gain any additional capital. An investor would not want to invest in the company this way, because the company is struggling and needs new capital.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b32701eca361387d32f57d1bcda9f2b7", "text": "I believe, I could be wrong, it has been a long day. By exercising this right you have the right to purchase the equivalent of their current share. Eg. Someone owns 50 of 100 shares. and the company does a rights offering and is expanding the shares to 200. That person has first right to purchase 50 more shares to keep his share from being diluted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d457ed23d4d188203fae9f08792b9a22", "text": "\"This is an old question, but a new product has popped up that provides an alternative answer. There is a website called stockpile.com that allows you to purchase \"\"stock gift certificates\"\" for others. These come in both electronic and traditional physical form. This meets my question's original criteria of a gift giver paying for stock without having any of the recipient's personal information and thus maintaining the gift's surprise. I should note a few things about this service: Despite these limitations I wanted to post it here so others were aware of it as an option. If no other alternative will work and this is what it takes to get a parent interested in teaching their child to invest, then it's well worth the costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a58078ab7f833f0906be1b19c3205f03", "text": "Your son can gift you unlimited amount of money. It does not fall under income tax. It falls under gift tax. As per gift tax there is no tax for you. Any interest you earn on this is taxable to you. Your son transferred into savings account... if your son is NRI he can't hold savings account. Ask him to open a NRE account and convert savings account to NRO account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ca405224c5eb80b97e9c9a2ecccc177", "text": "\"Yes, this is possible with some companies. When you buy shares of stock through a stock broker, the shares are kept in \"\"street name.\"\" That means that the shares are registered to the broker, not to you. That makes it easy to sell the stock later. The stock broker keeps track of who actually owns which shares. The system works well, and there are legal protections in place to protect the investors' assets. You can request that your broker change the stock to your name and request a certificate from the company. However, companies are no longer required to do this, and some won't. Your broker will charge you a fee for this service. Alternatively, if you really only want one share for decoration, there are companies that specialize in selling shares of stock with certificates. Two of them are giveashare.com and uniquestockgift.com, which offer one real share of stock with a stock certificate in certain popular companies. (Note: I have no experience with either one.) Some companies no longer issue new stock certificates; for those, these services sell you a replica stock certificate along with a real share of electronic stock. (This is now the case for Disney and Apple.) With your stock certificate, you are an actual official stockholder, entitled to dividends and a vote at the shareholder meeting. If this is strictly an investment for you, consider the advantages of street name shares: As to your question on buying stock directly from a company and bypassing a broker altogether, see Can I buy stocks directly from a public company?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99f12ff59bf48a85cb17d5c598446f19", "text": "Energy Transfer Partners, LP (stock symbol ETP) is the parent company of Dakota Access LLC, the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline. Since ETP is a publicly traded company, it is certainly possible to purchase the stock. To answer your questions: Would it not be possible to buy their stocks, bring down the price of the stocks and keep it there until investors pull out because it is financially unwise to these investors? You cannot artificially bring the price of a stock down by buying the stock. Purchasing large enough amounts would theoretically cause the price to go up, not down. You could theoretically cause the stock to go down by shorting the stock (borrowing shares and then selling them), but it would take a lot of shares to do this, and may not be successful. If not successful, your losses are potentially unlimited. Would it alternatively be possible to buy enough stock to have a voice in the operations of the company? Yes, you could theoretically purchase enough of the stock to control the company. The market capitalization of ETP is currently $17.9 Billion; if you owned half of the stock, you would have complete control of the company. But buying that much stock would certainly influence the price of the stock, so it would cost you more than half of that amount to buy that much stock. You could get yourself a voice at the table for less without owning a full half of the stock, but you would not have full control, and would need support from others to get the outcome you want. Alternatively, someone determined to exert their influence could theoretically make an offer to purchase the Dakota Access subsidiary from ETP, which might be less costly than purchasing half of the entire corporation. Even if an extremely wealthy person were to try one of these options and destroy this company, it wouldn't necessarily stop another company from building something similar. The investors you purchased the company from would have billions of dollars to do so with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d0906a0418371cf2b5a442b1fe2c8f6", "text": "If the company is non-public, your hands are tied. Most startups have a Stock Option Plan with specific rules on the shares. In almost all cases, they have a Transferability clause preventing transfers of options and shares unless approved by the company (who would almost always say no). Additionally, they usually have a Right of First Refusal (ROFR), which states that if shares are going to be transferred, the company gets the chance to buy it first. In your case, the company may argue your friend would sell you the shares for free and the company would exercise their ROFR and buy back the shares for free. There is not much you can do in this case. You may be able to write up a contract between your friend and you, but it would be costly and possibly not worth the effort. You may be better off asking for a lump sum or some other sort of compensation. Additionally, your friend might want to be careful with this idea. You could potentially gain access to sensitive company tools/documents which could get them in a lot of trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfbce967b0ac112361a262d4f6d7aa3d", "text": "\"You uncle is liable to pay \"\"Capital-Gains\"\" tax. Essentially the sale price less of cost would be treated as gains. The gains are taxed at 10% without indexation and 20% with Indexation. The capital gains tax can be avoided if your uncle invests the gains into specified \"\"Infrastructure bonds\"\" or buys another property within a period of 3 years. The funds need to be kept in a separate \"\"Capital Gains\"\" account and not a regular savings account till you buy another property within 3 years.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56118b160c84e11733b13d8d909fbd1d", "text": "I think the cleanest way to do this is to rent the house from your father for 2 years, possibly adding an option to buy at a set price to the lease agreement. That takes care of any gift issues, and avoids complications like you living in a house that you couldn't afford to own otherwise. If/when you are able to afford a mortgage, get a mortgage on the house and buy it from your father. Will a bank be willing to take out a mortgage on a house that I technically own for the full amount? I would not take out a mortgage for anything more than 80% of the house's market value. Anything more than that, and you need to pay mortgage insurance, which will increase your monthly payment for no benefit to you. My biggest concern is that you won't be able to afford an 80% mortgage after 2 years. If your father really wants to keep the house in the family then he should either keep the house and rent it to you, or give you the down payment as a gift (keeping under the maximum gift to avoid taxes). If neither you or your father cannot afford the house you may have no choice but to sell it. I would not advise you make a bad financial decision purely for sentimental reasons.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32feefcea4d58b75470f821ea0aaa317", "text": "You would still be the legal owner of the shares, so you would almost certainly need to transfer them to a broker than supports the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (which allows you to trade on the Shanghai exchange). In order to delist they would need to go through a process which would include enabling shareholders to continue to access their holdings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c526e569e2ae563e14b933f146c30364", "text": "\"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed \"\"N\"\" number of shares. The \"\"N\"\" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B. From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ed2984d698f68a74758ef707ea55897d	Missing 401(k) dividends	[ { "docid": "8f94c2aedfcae7a40f3f9d639c2e702a", "text": "Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ce25b1830452e713b8ff2b84a9d71f11", "text": "\"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\"\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\"\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \"\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\"\" was difficult to get from my \"\"Personal Representative\"\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cf53539bda07f5efe80c4aa08b8b8f3", "text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2164e8c58b0d0fb51e5b3005e5e0fb0b", "text": "Okay thanks, let's hope it's a relatively painless process to correct my mistake! Really odd that my 401(k)s are traditional, I was so sure they weren't. Maybe it's better then to open up a traditional IRA alongside the Roth, use that for rollovers, and just kick a few bucks into the Roth on occasion?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8", "text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c90632e5a5534cfb491f783708f5b0c9", "text": "There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "863caebe164e5bd922034f24c3029475", "text": "\"New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an \"\"ADR Pass-Through Fee\"\". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f3e9c74845865a96e9d863870771b7e", "text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5e35acc0e3a733ab09281a4287d51ee", "text": "The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6be831b52115cf6dcbf224d2b4ed272", "text": "Dividends from mutual funds reduce the share value the day they are distributed. Mutual funds do this at least once a year, or more times in the year if there are a lot of gains, to pass through taxable gains to individuals who may have lower tax rates or deferred tax accounts such as you. This is meaningful for investors who hold the mutual funds in taxable accounts, but immaterial for 401ks. Your account balance is not affected if you don't get the distribution before roll over.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b673df4129fb2dab004b655c4a601aa", "text": "No. As a rule, the dividends you see in the distribution table are what you'll receive before paying any taxes. Tax rates differ between qualified and unqualified/ordinary dividends, so the distribution can't include taxes because tax rates may differ between investors. In my case I hold it in an Israeli account but the tax treaty between our countries still specifies 25% withheld tax This is another example of why tax rates differ between investors. If I hold SPY too, my tax rate will be very different because I don't hold it in an account like yours, so the listed dividend couldn't include taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2985abf51365c0748e889c837755967", "text": "I question the reliability of the information you received. Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees. There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them. I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250", "text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caf4adfd21859c172926d3c5efe935fd", "text": "\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d304e33e18f5f22766283a4d16a7ca8b", "text": "http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e55b9e38a7bc2e8300c9d6d1f3214e7", "text": "As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
716609f4194b88ac73c0e02dafd7f736	Are these really bond yields?	[ { "docid": "02712dd09c447dfaea3a56b5f27d68d2", "text": "\"that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. Those are annualized yields. It would be more precise to say that \"\"a 30Y US Treasury bond yields 2.78% per year (annualized) over 30 years\"\", but that terminology is implied in bond markets. So if you invest $1,000 in a 30-year T-bond, you will earn roughly 2.78% in interest per year. Also note that yield is calculated as if it compounded, meaning that investing in a 30-year T-bind will give you a return that is equivalent to putting it in a savings account that earns 1.39% interest (half of 2.78%) every 6 months and compounds, meaning you earn interest on top of interest. The trade-off for these low yields is you have virtually no default risk. Unlike a company that could go bankrupt and not pay back the bond, the US Government is virtually certain to pay off these bonds because it can print or borrow more money to pay off the debts. In addition, bonds in general (and especially treasuries) have very low market risk, meaning that their value fluctuates much less that equities, even indicies. S&P 500 indices may move anywhere between -40% and 50% in any given year, while T-bonds' range of movement is much lower, between -10% and 30% historically).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "631c6e3f6efdc57d684f2b42448b65a5", "text": "Yes those are really yields. A large portion of the world has negative yielding bonds in fact. This process has been in motion for the past 10 years for very specific reasons. So congratulations on discovering the bond market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e768a08c0ab799ca0b2022ed60642360", "text": "But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0917b869f6a039582d7eb14689bceea3", "text": "It's worth pointing out that a bulk of the bond market is institutional investors (read: large corporations and countries). For individuals, it's very easy to just put your cash in a checking account. Checking accounts are insured and non-volatile. But what happens when you're GE or Apple or Panama? You can't just flop a couple billion dollars in to a Chase checking account and call it a day. Although, you still need a safe place to store money that won't be terribly volatile. GE can buy a billion dollars of treasury bonds. Many companies need tremendous amounts of collateral on hand, amounts far in excess of the capacity of a checking account; those funds are stored in treasuries of some sort. Separately, a treasury bond is not a substitute investment for an S&P index fund. For individuals they are two totally different investments with totally different characteristics. The only reason an individual investor should compare the return of the S&P against the readily available yield of treasuries is to ensure the expected return of an equity investment can sufficiently pay for the additional risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "325ef8ebd7d05c2444b8ed63b93414b1", "text": "\"Those are the \"\"right\"\" yields. They are historically (but not \"\"nonsensically\"\") low. Those yields are reflective of the sluggish U.S. and global economic activity of the past decade. If global growth were higher, the yields would be higher. The period most nearly comparable to the past 10 years in U.S. and world history was the depressed 1930s. (I am the author of this 2004 book that predicted a stock market crash (which occurred in 2008), and the modern 1930s, but I was wrong in my assumption that the modern 1930s would involve another depression rather than 'slow growth.')\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2c7e81b14aae407aa74a480c70bcbd50", "text": "My question is (ok a lot of questions) how viral are these borrowing cost increases? Will other European countries need to raise bond yields to sell bonds? Will the US? Will the US be lending Spain part of the $125b bailout money and raise borrowing costs?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b49a84cc6307004df52a8092a033866", "text": "\"You are asking multiple questions here, pieces of which may have been addressed in other questions. A bond (I'm using US Government bonds in this example, and making the 'zero risk of default' assumption) will be priced based on today's interest rate. This is true whether it's a 10% bond with 10 years left (say rates were 10% on the 30 yr bond 20 years ago) a 2% bond with 10 years, or a new 3% 10 year bond. The rate I use above is the 'coupon' rate, i.e. the amount the bond will pay each year in interest. What's the same for each bond is called the \"\"Yield to Maturity.\"\" The price adjusts, by the market, so the return over the next ten years is the same. A bond fund simply contains a mix of bonds, but in aggregate, has a yield as well as a duration, the time-and-interest-weighted maturity. When rates rise, the bond fund will drop in value based on this factor (duration). Does this begin to answer your question?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82ea0d1ce78d1bcdea1963a057b8a119", "text": "I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ecfa6bb9c8b37781cfa02cab7521ce22", "text": "Negative coupons are not the same as a negative yield. A $1000 bond that you purchase, at a premium, for $2100 that produces 10 annual coupons of $100 and a redemption of $1000 has a real, positive coupon ($100). The holder of the bond gets this coupon, and the maturity value However, you get back less than your initial investment. There is no growth; the original investment shrinks, or has a negative growth rate. Most mortgage or bond calculators choke on this situation...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7a66aad95b9c6b7ab472878f1956f3d", "text": "This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bbb143439072ec586a1e53facd017ea", "text": "\"As trane_0 suggested above, I am not questioning the validity of the study by Kenichi Ueda and Beatrice Weder Di Mauro. I don't doubt that there is some discount to the risk premium demanded in the market for the debt of systemically important banks. What I am doubting is that this is a \"\"subsidy\"\" by the US government. This is a \"\"subsidy\"\" by bond investors, not the US government. Additionally, it is based on the assessment of risk by those investors as there is no explicit guarantee by the US government (see Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns). There is no transfer of wealth by the US government and therefore there is no active subsidy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2aaca1bc531b6eef0e29db9a819bcf72", "text": "Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af78c4c4186788dd4ac2f120b3c02a17", "text": "Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk. This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary. Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history. This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76a0c8ed153a411eec41b9ea2782c467", "text": "\"I mean, it's only a difference of an order of magnitude, really. Until you consider the following: 1) Only a fraction of the $800B Muni bonds market is new issue. 2) True spreads on Muni bonds are hard enough to calculate as is because they're all OTC. 3)The author quotes that the particular bid was for an 87K/year return on a notional of $300M. That's a spread of a whopping 3 basis points that the bank took extra over \"\"true value\"\". 4) Intraday vol for almost any financial instrument is more than 3 basis points. 5) So that's what he's making this big deal over? THREE basis points? I don't even know the length of my penis to within three basis points, and I challenge you to find anyone who could name the yield on the 10Y Treasury within 3 basis points.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42f339e971647b05cea2661ae64b1c55", "text": "\"The answer is yes. And the reason is if today's interest rates are lower than the interest rate (coupon) at which the bond was issued. The bond's \"\"lifetime value\"\" is 100 cents on the dollar. That's the principal repayment that the investor will get on the maturity date. But suppose the bond's coupon rate is 4% while today's interest rate is 3%. Then, people who bought the bond at 100 would get 4% on their money, while everyone else was getting 3%. To compensate, a three year bond would have to rise to almost 103 so that the so-called yield to maturity\"\" would be 3%. Then there would be a \"\"capital loss\"\" (from almost 103 to 100) that would exactly offset the extra interest, that is 1% \"\"more\"\" for three years. If today's interest rates are negative (as they were from time to time in the 1930s, and in the present decade), the \"\"negative\"\" interest rates will prevent the buyer from getting the \"\"lifetime value\"\" (as defined by the OP) of principal plus interest over the original life of the bond. This happens in a \"\"flight to quality\"\" situation, where people are willing to take a (small) capital loss on Treasuries in order to prevent a large possible loss from bank failures like those that took place in 2008.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94f4b3bad0673cfc2d66983ab898f89d", "text": "What you said is technically correct. But the implication OP might get from that statement is wrong. If the Fed buys bonds and nominal yields go down (Sometimes they might even go up if it meant the market expected the Fed's actions to cause more inflation), inflation expectations don't go down unless real yields as measured by TIPs stay still.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84285f1c7b71bb6ca3ea25892aa61c50", "text": "With the formula you are using you assume that the issued bond (bond A) is a perpetual. Given the provided information, you can't really do more than this, it's only an approximation. The difference could be explained by the repayment of the principal (which is not the case with a perpetual). I guess the author has calculated the bond value with principal repayment. You can get more insight in the calculation from the excel provided at this website: http://breakingdownfinance.com/finance-topics/bond-valuation/fixed-rate-bond-valuation/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "099a0afe44a9775482bc038a44439a33", "text": "\"Beyond the yield/price relationship, a good intuitive way to understand it is just this: these people control a substantial amount of money that could be essentially loaned to governments. If they feel a particular policy is likely to lead to inflation or default, they may decide not to loan that country any more money. All else being equal, with a smaller supply of possible borrowers, the country will have to pay higher interest to fund a particular amount of debt. Furthermore they may loudly publicly announce that they will no longer lend to that country, in which case other participants may be persuaded that they too should no longer lend at the going rate. What's more, this is somewhat self-fulfilling: as rates go up, the country will spend more money servicing its debt, and will in fact become a worse risk. So I think the thing that gives them their \"\"vigilante\"\" nature is that governments worry they will round up a posse and things will run away. As far as actual incentives, I would welcome more information but I think the main bond vigilante case is that they are basically long on the country but want it to tighten up its policy so their existing holdings don't decline.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb13206ea224b7582cf0d78ef5c3c875", "text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62f3d7b741fce8fcb3f608bb101fc0c5", "text": "\"All of the other answers here are accurate, but (I think) are missing the point as to the question, which rests on how Bonds work in the first place. The bond specifies a payback AMOUNT and DATE. Let's say it is $10,000 and one year from today. If you buy that today for $9900, your yield will be 1%. If you buy it today for $11,000, your yield will be less than 0% (please don't make me do the math - it's just under negative 1%). You might be willing to pay that 1% (rather than receive 1%) for the certainty that you will definitely get your money back. The combined actions of all the people who may be willing to pay a little more or a little less for the safety of a US Treasury Bond is what people call \"\"the Market.\"\" Market forces (generally, investor confidence) will drive the price up and down, which affects the yield. All the other stuff - coupons and inflation and whatnot - all of that only makes sense if you understand that you aren't buying a rate of return, you are buying a payback amount and date.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
cdae7760799435980af197817f9a92af	Conservative ways to save for retirement?	[ { "docid": "f1a77888aa6785b6bfac3feea734ffa8", "text": "A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b623b6274302c11d05991d92406e35c8", "text": "\"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5833ec8d238cc8454f640e2e7dadd266", "text": "It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "340d44a9f7c323428a3fd7a583777194", "text": "I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afcbba3f03728adfe19c574190cb89cd", "text": "Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257a8f93e0de0801f8797cea3e791f6e", "text": "Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "996b732e38a70f90a62d98cbc95f0edd", "text": "A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "551e04ec2baa8f1a64f61ef6cd41daff", "text": "The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2f74d5da16c8fedf4baa825e11f13d7", "text": "According to my reading, the Trinity study says you can withdraw 4% a year for 30 years without exhausting your nest egg, not necessarily that it won't shrink. In most cases, your nest egg will indeed grow. But unfortunately you can't plan to leave no estate while simultaneously preparing for worst-case scenarios in case you happen to pick a bad year to stop working. You can run simulations based on historical data on sites like cFIREsim. And once you're retired, you could potentially increase your spending if simulations show that you're likely to leave behind a large estate. You also probably want to look into things like charitable remainder trusts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4af3b7e4a7dc409c0d3b4efd7d64128", "text": "\"I have an idea. Keep saving what you are and think \"\"Early Retirement\"\". Work for 20 years, then do whatever you want 40 hours a week. If your satisfied with your current lifestyle, start thinking of your bigger long term financial goals and when you want to accomplish them by. Maybe you can accomplish these sooner than you think. Saving to buy a house/property? Investment portfolio? Want to travel all over the world? Family planning/kids? I am sure you will figure out how you would want to spend it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b57b3a32bfd52fec3ec9ac55da0dc76a", "text": "Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college. Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts. Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income. With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal. This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement. It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need. Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere? Could a relative loan you money? Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash? Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same? Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash? Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation? Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there. Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "081215682c8e1eab69d3bbd7dddc7c1c", "text": "\"You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now. First off you are going to have a \"\"boat load\"\" of money. Like probably a multi-millionaire. Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest. For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds. So fast forward to retirement time. You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties. For one your expenses are much lower. You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt. Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well. You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans. This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments. You can also draw social security income. For most of us social security will provide sustenance living. Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc. Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K. Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw. Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary. Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation. With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it. In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash. Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates. (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year. Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice: Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car. It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82c7493b748407a298bceb7eb6c7650f", "text": "\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66a8d2bd6df7b51a688f52da91c955b0", "text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a0bb7979da8c6d219194fbe361f039b", "text": "You can't pay your bills with equity in your house. Assuming you paid off the mortgage, where would the money come from that you plan to live off of? If that is your whole retirement savings I'd say do neither. Maybe an annuity (not variable) for SOME of the money, keep the rest invested in conservative investments some of it in cash for emergencies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbb043138c397f744b965e44a89abb5f", "text": "\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c4db89839bf06a8c684257ea8615b86", "text": "\"Since the other answers have covered mutual funds/ETFs/stocks/combination, some other alternatives I like - though like everything else, they involve risk: Example of how these other \"\"saving methods\"\" can be quite effective: about ten years ago, I bought a 25lb bag of quinoa at $19 a bag. At the same company, quinoa is now over $132 for a 25lb bag (590%+ increase vs. the S&P 500s 73%+ increase over the same time period). Who knows what it will cost in ten years. Either way, working directly with the farmers, or planting it myself, may become even cheaper in the future, plus learning how to keep and store the seeds for the next season.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2c923b73acb20d13c877daff38b68aa", "text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95e90433ef39fdd56ddc0a47483bb000", "text": "Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33", "text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0181b5b73cc89e56d3146f077981403", "text": "You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension. They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e08df33197ca1fa5e358e81fe8993e6a	eurodollar future	[ { "docid": "557a6cad91cdbb47585518cd2448d807", "text": "If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c70a614589354717b2fe6d2c6f2c6b2f", "text": "^This. As we can see with the pending $125b bail-out that Europe will provide. Imagine, if India was in the place of the Spanish? Who would conjure up such a bail-out for them? As said by 23_47 earlier, the credit rating is a measure of risk. A country backed by a 17-country alliance (Eurozone) is less risky to invest in than a country without such support.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "868f3ce3c945c36bb0a4722495e848c9", "text": "The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1aa8e87a1881bf344bdfee7c4c4e4eb5", "text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a493da20b1cbd404298095c658da479", "text": "My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d94ad5be7d204f89427965766afdaa0d", "text": "Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa6070b128d30dc1befad2f10a9c1934", "text": "theoretically this concept makes sense. However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits. so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof). Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe. Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0dcde7237c2f07188a3d6d58976f32e7", "text": "Crypto will make us all rich when it becomes the new standard highly volatile currency. As we all know how attractive a highly volatile currency is. Who doesn't want to save on 1% banking fees for cross border transactions when you could use crypto and potentially make or lose 20%. /s", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b346ac30ad1dc6e6710e573670fca002", "text": "Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different. Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6133f6d083b06457fb1454a44b740a51", "text": "These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected. Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more. The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml). These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a6335622f8a3acaa31061005b25dd52", "text": "Cyprus could be forced into such a position because the deposits are euro-denominated and the issuing central bank sits outside the sovereign authority of Cyprus. So they could go, hat in hand, to the ECB asking them to backstop deposits. A lender of last resort function that is more or less a given in countries with their own sovereign currencies. In a country like the US, where deposits are denominated in US dollars and the US is the issuer of the dollar, there would always be a option. Bail-ins are certainly possible as a political choice but they'd never be the only option. Which is why you didn't see them or depositor losses of any kind in spite of hundreds of bank failures in the wake of the 2008 crisis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cf9b2ccd17a3a3b93f98c2723349375", "text": "I don't intend to live in the UK again If you don't intend to live in the UK again, my advise would be to move this back to Germany in EUR in the near future. Generally taking Fx [Currency] risk is not advisable unless the portfolio is large. I don't need the money in the short term As you don't need the money immediately, you can afford to wait and watch a bit. Whether the rate will be more favourable or worse can't be predicated with certainty. So you can wait for few weeks / months and pick up a week when it is slightly favourable and convert them into EUR.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ff08107bbfa13cbfeed8f5187580bce", "text": "\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23", "text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21053ffb4e4417f8b9aa2e3a8d20fed8", "text": "\"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d97f0121812448b1da034da9f68ef43", "text": "While it's possible that the dollar could lose its grip as the global currency, it's unlikely that it will be quickly supplanted by another. The world might simply see a a paradigm shift towards the use of whatever currency suits whichever counterparty at any given moment.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b3c45e119389aaaf13684d85359d129c	How much lump sum investment in stocks would be needed to yield a target stable monthly income?	[ { "docid": "de18fec08e2cf256ee9a77dc22541ab7", "text": "If your requirements are hard (must have $1000/month, must have the same or bigger in capital at the end), stocks are a poor choice of investment. However, in many cases, people are willing to tolerate some level of risk to achieve the expected returns. You also do not mention inflation, which can take quite a lot out of your portfolio over the course of ten years. If we make some simplifying assumptions, you want to generate $12,000 a year. You can realistically expect the (whole) stock market, long term (i.e. over time periods substantially longer than 10 years), to return approximately 4 - 5% after factoring in inflation. That means an investment of $240,000 - $300,000 (the math is simplified somewhat here). If you don't care about inflation, you can up the percentage rather somewhat. According to this article, the S&P 500 returned an average of 11.31% from 1928 through 2010 (not factoring in inflation), which would require an investment of approximately $106,100. But! This opens you up to substantial risk. The stock market may go down 30% this year! According to the above article, the S&P returned only 3.54% from 2001 to 2010. Long-term, it goes up, but your investment case is really unsuited to investing in an index to the entire stock market given your requirements. You may be better suited investing primarily in stable bonds, or perhaps a mix of bonds and stocks. Alternatively, you may want to consider even more stable investments such as treasury notes. Treasury notes are all but guaranteed, but with a lousy rate of return. Heck, you could consider a GIC (that may be Canada-only) or even a savings account. There's also the possibility of purchasing an annuity, though almost everyone will advise against such. Personally, I'd go for a mutual fund which invested approximately 70% bonds and the rest in stocks over such a time period. Something like ING Direct's Streetwise Balanced Income Portfolio, if you were in Canada. It substantially lowers your expected return but also lowers your risk. I can't honestly say what the expected return there is; at this point, it's returned 4% per year (before inflation), but has been around only since the beginning of 2008. And to be clear, this is absolutely not free of risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "759e601171450b86a2054b66acd393e7", "text": "\"I will add another point to ChrisinEdmonton's answer... I recognize that this is perhaps appropriate as a comment--or maybe 1/2 of an answer, but the comment formatting is inadequate for what I want to say. The magic formula that you need to understand is this: (Capital Invested) * (Rate of Return) = (Income per Period) When ChrisinEdmonton says that you need $300,000, he is doing some basic algebra... (Capital Required) = (Income per Period) / (Rate of Return) So if you're looking at $12,000 per year in passive income as a goal, and you can find a \"\"safe\"\" 4% yield, then what ChrisinEdmonton did is: $12,000 / 0.04 = $300,000 You can use this to play around with different rates of return and see what investment options you can find to purchase. Investment categories like REITs will risk your principal a little more, but have some of the highest dividend yields of around 8%--12%. You would need $100,000--$150,000 at those yields. Some of the safest approaches would be bonds or industrial stocks that pay dividends. Bonds exist around 3%--4%, and industrial dividend stocks (think GE or UTX or Coca Cola) tend to pay more like 2%-3%. The key point I'm trying to make is that if you're looking for this type of passive income, I recommend that you don't plan on the income coming from gains to the investment... This was something that ChrisinEdmonton wasn't entirely clear about. It can be complicated and expensive to whittle away at a portfolio and spend it along the way.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "638e5dffc189949a5b4ba471ef3f81ab", "text": "First thing to know about investing is that you make money by taking risks. That means the possibility of losing money as well as making it. There are low risk investments that pretty much always pay out but they don't earn much. Making $200 a month on $10,000 is about 26% per year. That's vastly more than you are going to earn on low risk assets. If you want that kind of return, you can invest in a diversified portfolio of equities through an equity index fund. Some years you may make 26% or more. Other years you may make nothing or lose that much or more. On average you may earn maybe 7%-10% hopefully. Overall, investing is a game of making money over long horizons. It's very useful for putting away your $10k now and having hopefully more than that when it comes time to buy a house or retire or something some years into the future. You have to accept that you might also end up with less than $10K in the end, but you are more likely to make money than to use it. What you describe doesn't seem like a possible situation. In developed markets, you can't reliably expect anything close to the return you desire from assets that are unlikely to lose you money. It might be time to re-evaluate your financial goals. Do you want spending money now, or do you want to invest for use down the road?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a232d57eda3c1cab3e61526c4034ff9", "text": "Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a096017425e2ce877270cfe192840362", "text": "We can't know the future, of course, but we know that on average it's better to invest a lump sum. We can look at some periods of recent history to get a sense of the difference between a lump sum 450k investment and maybe say 5 years of 90k. Using S&P 500 return rates, let's say you started investing on Jan 1, 2008: Here, spreading your investing over 5 years earns you an extra $163k. Starting a year later, the same strategy would earn you $327k less than a lump investment: I looked at some other periods, but the story doesn't change from what we already knew; you can reduce risk of losing a big chunk due to a bad year, but it comes at the cost of potential gains. Perhaps you could make a killing by waiting for the next down-turn and buying on the cheap, or maybe you'll just be wasting time and money as the market enjoys sustained growth. I'd go with a lump, trusting the averages; but you're right, another 2008 with no recovery would suck. As for holding $50k back it depends primarily on your monthly budget, many people suggest a 3-8 month liquid emergency fund, I like 6 months. Go with what you're comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "218cacbddc7d3cdfee18abddc3031156", "text": "There will quickly come a time when buying to rebalance is impractical. Consider, you save 10%, and at some point, you have 5x your income saved. (you earn $50K and have accumulated $250K). A simple allocation, 50/50, so $125K stock, $125K bonds. Now, in a year the market is up much over 4%, your $5K deposit will not be enough to balance. Earlier on, the method may work just fine, later on, not so much. Edit - The above is an example, to show that there will come a time when deposits are not enough to rebalance. The above single year produces a 52/48 split, and the rebalance deposits more than 2 years. If the market continues to rise a reasonable amount, 2 years later you are even more out of balance, perhaps 56/44. I chose reasonable numbers as a starting point, just 5X income saved, and a 10% annual deposit. In the end, you can waive off any divergence from your target. That's your choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9e48a11308d97a1a6dc2bc0223e38dd", "text": "Paying $12,000 in lump sumps annually will mean a difference of about $250 in interest vs. paying $1,000 monthly. If front-load the big payment, that saves ~$250 over paying monthly over the year. If you planned to save that money each month and pay it at the end, then it would cost you ~$250 more in mortgage interest. So that's how much money you would have to make with that saved money to offset the cost. Over the life of the loan the choice between the two equates to less than $5,000. If you pay monthly it's easy to calculate that an extra $1,000/month would reduce the loan to 17 years, 3 months. That would give you a savings of ~$400,000 at the cost of paying $207,000 extra during those 17 years. Many people would suggest that you invest the money instead because the annual growth rates of the stock market are well in excess of your 4.375% mortgage. What you decide is up to you and how conservative your investing strategy is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78376c71017ce85c9868e6f3729b6df2", "text": "Your edit indicates that you may not yet be ready to get heavily involved in investing. I say this because it seems you are not very familiar with foundational finance/investing concepts. The returns that you are seeing as 'yearly' are just the reported earnings every 12 months, which all public companies must publish. Those 'returns' are not the same as the earnings of individual investors (which will be on the basis of dividends paid by the company [which are often annual, sometimes semi-annual, and sometimes quarterly], and by selling shares purchased previously. Note that over 3 months time, investing in interest-earning investments [like bank deposits] will earn you something like 0.5%. Investing in the stock market will earn you something like 2% (but with generally higher risk than investing in something earning interest). If you expect to earn significant amounts of money in only 3 months, you will not be able to without taking on extreme levels of risk [risk as high as going to a casino]. Safe investing takes time - years. In the short term, the best thing you can do to earn money is by earning more [through a better job, or a second part-time job], or spending less [budget, pay down high interest debt, and spend less than you earn]. I highly recommend you look through this site for more budgeting questions on how to get control of your finances. If you feel that doesn't apply to you, I encourage you to do a lot more research on investing before you send your money somewhere - you could be taking on more risk than you realize, if you are not properly informed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18dc11038b704c39f7953a3b7ce11b67", "text": "I think the dividend fund may not be what youre looking for. You mentioned you want growth, not income. But I think of dividend stocks as income stocks, not growth. They pay a dividend because these are established companies that do not need to invest so much in capex anymore, so they return it to shareholders. In other words, they are past their growth phase. These are what you want to hold when you have a large nest egg, you are ready to retire, and just want to make a couple percent a year without having to worry as much about market fluctuations. The Russel ETF you mentioned and other small caps are I think what you are after. I recently made a post here about the difference between index funds and active funds. The difference is very small. That is, in any given year, many active ETFs will beat them, many wont. It depends entirely on the market conditions at the time. Under certain conditions the small caps will outperform the S&P, definitely. However, under other conditioned, such as global growth slowdown, they are typically the first to fall. Based on your comments, like how you mentioned you dont want to sell, I think index funds should make up a decent size portion of your portfolio. They are the safest bet, long term, for someone who just wants to buy and hold. Thats not to say they need be all. Do a mixture. Diversification is good. As time goes on dont be afraid to add bond ETFs either. This will protect you during downturns as bond prices typically rise under slow growth conditions (and sometimes even under normal conditions, like last year when TLT beat the S&P...)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b906cdacb29255d729eb9ce051426cc4", "text": "\"Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"\"no house\"\" number becomes .024N. The \"\"with house\"\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"\"with house\"\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3787ce52da94e544036b6fada6b1e3a2", "text": "\"I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a \"\"more accurate\"\" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that \"\"saving enough\"\" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify \"\"not a binary thing\"\": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between \"\"plausible plan\"\" and \"\"denial.\"\" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question \"\"is it reasonable to retire right now?\"\" or \"\"could I retire in 5 years?\"\" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19cee018f7319046d2a12068ecb47663", "text": "There is a fundamental flaw in this statement: For example, a home bought cash $100,000 would have to be sold $242,726.247 30 years later just to make up with inflation, and that would be a 0% return. You forgot to deduct rent from your monthly carrying costs. That changes the calculations significantly. Your calculations are valid ONLY if you were to buy a house, and let it sit empty, which is unlikely. Either you are going to live in it, and save yourself $1000 a month in rent, or, you are going to rent it out to someone, and earn an income of $1000 a month. Either way, you're up $1000 a month and this needs to be included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1df0824cd1106c15f22942b08b7f6d3e", "text": "Using a simple investment calculator to get a sense of scale here, to have 70k total, including the 500 a month invested, after ten years you just need returns of 2%. To earn 70k on top of the money invested you would need returns over 20%. To do that in five years you would need over 50% annual return. That is quite a big difference. Annualized returns of 20% would require high risk and a very large amount of time invested, skill and luck. 2% returns can be nearly guaranteed without much effort. I would encourage you to think about your money more holistically. If you get very unlucky with investments and don't make any money will you not go on the vacations even if your income allows? That doesn't make a lot of sense. As always, spend all your money with the current and future in mind. Investment return Euros are no different from any other Euros. At that point, the advice is the same for all investors try to get as much return as possible for the risk you are comfortable with. You seem to have a high tolerance for risk. Generally, for investors with a high risk tolerance a broadly diversified portfolio of stocks (with maybe a small amount of bonds, other investments) will give the most return over the long term for the risk taken. After that generally the next most useful way to boost your returns is to try to avoid taxes which is why we talk about 401(k)s so much around here. Each European country has different tax law, but please ask questions here about your own country as well as you mention money.se could use more ex-US questions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "380cdfa7f62c5402bc555645be406c05", "text": "Not sure of your locality. In the USA, there are many options. There are many corporate bonds that pay interest monthly. You can invest in a handful of bonds, chosen so at least one of them pays interest each month. (Minimum investment requirements make this an expensive option) Unit Trusts made of bonds (a handful of bonds wrapped into a single fixed investment) usually pay monthly interest. As the bonds begin to mature, the interest payments shrink (but you begin to get principal payments which can be reinvested). Bond mutual funds and ETFs usually provide monthly dividends (that come from the interest and capital gains of the bonds held by the fund). Dividends are usually consistent, but not necessarily fixed. You can produce a monthly income from stocks in the same way as the above mentioned bond methods. Income can be consistent, but not fixed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1c8b750f6c21453c59ba60da65eed80", "text": "\"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "533f04145103c4aa9832c3611300f54c", "text": "What's the present value of using the payment plan? In all common sense the present value of a loan is the value that you can pay in the present to avoid taking a loan, which in this case is the lump sum payment of $2495. That rather supposes the question is a trick, providing irrelevant information about the stock market. However, if some strange interpretation is required which ignores the lump sum and wants to know how much you need in the present to pay the loan while being able to make 8% on the stock market that can be done. I will initially assume that since the lender's APR works out about 9.6% per month that the 8% from the stock market is also per month, but will also calculate for 8% annual effective and an 8% annual nominal rate. The calculation If you have $x in hand (present value) and it is exactly enough to take the loan while investing in the stock market, the value in successive months is $x plus the market return less the loan payment. In the third month the loan is paid down so the balance is zero. I.e. So the present value of using the payment plan while investing is $2569.37. You would need $2569.37 to cover the loan while investing, which is more than the $2495 lump sum payment requires. Therefore, it would be advisable to make the lump sum payment because it is less expensive: If you have $2569.37 in hand it would be best to pay the lump sum and invest the remaining $74.37 in the stock market. Otherwise you invest $2569.37 (initially), pay the loan and end up with $0 in three months. One might ask, what rate of return would the stock market need to yield to make it worth taking the loan? The APR proposed by the loan can be calculated. The present value of a loan is equal to the sum of the payments discounted to present value. I.e. with ∴ by induction So by comparing the $2495 lump sum payment with $997 over 3 x monthly instalments the interest rate implied by the loan can be found. Solving for r If you could obtain 9.64431% per month on the stock market the $x cash in hand required would be calculated by This is equal to the lump sum payment, so the calculated interest is comparable to the stock market rate of return. If you could gain more than 9.64431% per month on the stock market it would be better to invest and take the loan. Recurrence Form Solving the recurrence form shows the calculation is equivalent to the loan formula, e.g. becomes v[m + 1] = (1 + y) v[m] - p where v[0] = pv where In the final month v[final] = 0, i.e. when m = 3 Compare with the earlier loan formula: s = (d - d (1 + r)^-n) / r They are exactly equivalent, which is quite interesting, (because it wasn't immediately obvious to me that what the lender charges is the mirror opposite of what you gain by investing). The present value can be now be calculated using the formula. Still assuming the 8% stock market return is per month. If the stock market yield is 8% per annum effective rate and if it is given as a nominal annual yield, 8% compounded monthly", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d08ff3e58982b76204e36b8c574f08f", "text": "Here are my re-run figures. Not counting capital gains taxes, I calculate you need to be making 1.875% per annum or 0.155% per month on your $8,000 investment to break-even on the loan. It's interesting that the return you need to gain to break-even is less than the interest you're paying, even with commission. It happens because the investment is gaining a return on an increasing amount while the load is accruing interest on a decreasing amount. Ref. r, logarithmic return", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b06a62cfe36691521166efdfa8d648b6	Is it true that the price of diamonds is based on a monopoly?	[ { "docid": "1c22c0a1a9af059dcbb487067fb72df7", "text": "\"Yes, the De Beers Group of Companies is a diamond cartel that had complete control of the diamond market for most of the 20th century. They still control a sizable portion of the market and their effort at marketing (particularly with the slogan \"\"A Diamond is Forever\"\") has done much to inflate the market for diamonds in our society. The intrinsic value of diamonds is much lower than the market prices currently reflect, but with the caveat that there is a rarity factor which does drive up the price of larger diamonds. The larger the diamond, the more likely it is to have flaws, so when it comes to diamonds that are 5 carats or greater, you are not as likely to see a new supply of diamonds disrupt the prices of those larger stones. Some other ways that high end jewelers and suppliers are differentiating themselves is by patenting a specific cut that they design. This is another barrier to entry that works to create some artificial price inflation. One common example is the Lucida cut sometimes referred to as the Tiffany cut. Diamonds can also be manufactured. The same carbon structure can be grown in a lab. These stones have the same carbon structure as natural diamonds but without the flaws and visible impurities. Most manufactured diamonds are used industrially, but processes have improved sufficiently to allow for gemstone quality synthetic diamonds. They sell at a decent discount, so that might be an option to consider if you want a substitute. In the years to come, you can expect prices for synthetic diamonds to continue to decrease which will probably put some further downward pressure on jewelers' prices.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19407b4a2eebe3c8cebd0851cc46f71c", "text": "diamonds are intrinsically worthless -- and therefore have quite little resale value It may be true that De Beers has a near monopoly on diamond supply, but they are still a scarce resource, so their supply is still very limited. They do have resale value - that's one reason why diamond jewelry is stolen so often. There's just not a huge secondary market for diamonds that I know of (unlike cars, for example). You can sell diamond jewelry at pawn shops or online brokers, but you probably only get a fraction of their retail value. They are not intrinsically worthless. They do have value in the industrial sector as powerful cutters, although synthetic diamonds are much more prevalent in this market. Their value in industry is much lower than their worth as jewelry. Think about gold - it does not have a monopolic supplier but it still has a relatively very high value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e138c63f0fc8f21a37c7720d5f1556d", "text": "De Beers is the company most cited as the near monopoly. They used to own a massive chunk of the diamond supply and intentionally restricted that supply to increase the price. In recent decades, new sources of diamonds have reduced the De Beers' singular grip. They still have a large share though. Video about this from Adam Ruins Everything: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU it turns out this ancient tradition [of giving diamonds rings for engagements] was invented less than a century ago by the De Beers Diamond Corporation... in 1938, the De Beers Diamond cartel launched a massive ad campaign, claiming that the only way for a real man to show his love is with an expensive hunk of crystallized carbon, and we bought that shit. It continues The only reason diamonds are even expensive is that De Beers has a global monopoly on diamond mining and they artificially restrict the supply, to jack the prices up. Because of this artificial supply restriction, the resale value of diamonds are quite low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9b6ecb9efb733da45c0d7825d612da6", "text": "\"diamonds are intrinsically worthless this is simply wrong. (1) Diamonds that are sold for anything less than, oh, let's say $5000 at original retail - are indeed utterly, totally, completely worthless. It is simply \"\"one of the great scams\"\". Their real \"\"price\"\" is maybe \"\"five bucks\"\". End of story. There is no secondary market. Literally - \"\"end of story\"\". If you buy a \"\"diamond\"\" lol for \"\"$2000\"\" to impress your loved one, you can not then \"\"sell it\"\" for any amount of money. It is: worthless. Once again: simple, undeniable fact. the diamond you bought for 2 grand cannot be resold. Ir's worthless. (OK, maybe you can get 100 bucks for it, something like that. Or, you can scam someone clueless, and get 200 bucks.) (2) However actual \"\"investment\"\" stones do in fact have a value - if somewhat fragile. Example, a few years ago I sold a stone for 30 thousand. That was a \"\"real\"\" price and it was quite liquid - I was within days able to find a buyer. (A dealer - he would have then sold it on for 35 or whatever.) I have never dealt in stones over six figures, but I'm fairly certain those are \"\"real\"\" valuable objects: just like paintings by name artists. (However: yes, the line between \"\"laughable diamonds\"\" and actual investment stones, is indeed moving ever upwards.) (Note - the \"\"elephant in the room\"\" with diamonds is that GE's industrial process for simply making utterly flawless diamonds, starting with carbon, is getting better every decade.) (A second overwheleming point that nobody has mentioned: diamonds get beat-up. Regarding \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\", a used one is exactly as useless as a used car. It's crap. Just as with $200,000 picassos, this concept does not apply to \"\"actual investment stones\"\".) Note that many of the comments/arguments on this page are very confused because: people are not distinguishing between the (ROFL) \"\"engagement ring scam market\"\" and the rarefied \"\"investment gem market\"\". The two things are utterly different. Yes, \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\" are an utter scam, and are simply: \"\"worthless\"\". The fundamental, basic, overwhelming scam in today's business/social universe is: \"\"engagement diamonds\"\". Yes, the price is only due to marketing/monopolies etc. Elephant in the room A: GE's technology can - end of story - manufacture diamonds. (Starting with \"\"pencil leads\"\".) End of story. It's all over. Elephant in the room B: folks forget that diamonds get beat-up, they are just like used cars. Regarding \"\"engagement-ring diamonds\"\", nobody has ever, or will ever, bought a used one. Simple, utterly undeniable fact: regarding \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\". they have: zero value. You cannot resell them. End of story. If you buy a house, you can resell it. If you buy a car, you can resell it (at a spectacular loss). If you buy a picasso, you can resell it (almost always making a huge profit). If you buy an \"\"engagement ring diamond\"\", it is worth: nothing. Zero. Nada. strictly regarding investment stones, which is a distinctly utterly different market. This market has no connection, in any way, at all, even vaguely, it is utterly unrelated, to \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\". You can in fact buy and sell these items - very much like say \"\"art\"\" or \"\"mid century antiques\"\", and make money. This market just has utterly no connection to the whole \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\" scam system. Say you buy wine at the supermarket, for 5 to 100 bucks a bottle. If you think that the \"\"wine\"\" thus bought, has a secondary market, or you can invest in it or something: you have lost your mind. In total contrast: Yes, although totally flakey, there is indeed an \"\"investment wine market\"\" which is real and reasonable. I for example have made some money in that. (I have a great anecdote even - I had one cellar of wine in burgundy, which could have been sold for, say, 30 grand - but we drank it :) ) Again, the (somewhat bizarre) actual market in investment wine, just has to \"\"buying wine in the supermarket\"\". To further the analogy: wine prices in the supermarket / your (ROFL) wine dealer, from 5 to 100 bucks, are just: utterly laughable. Utterly. Laughable. Much as folks sit around, and decide on \"\"label designs\"\", they sit around, and decide on \"\"price points\"\". There is, utterly, no difference between $5 and $100 grape juice rofl \"\"wine\"\". The price difference is simply a marketing decision: at best, you can think of it as a Velbin good. ... exactly the same applies to \"\"engagement ring diamonds\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "af9a56717d697648fde665eea44a7464", "text": "\"Could that be that you have been SOLD the notion that antitrust laws are a failed and discredited policy.... by those intent on protecting private cartels? (Republicans). Could it be that the enforcement arm of the government (like the SEC) have been weakened and captured by lobbyists in a revolving door between the private sector and the the government (facilitated by Democrats too)? With that said, before corporations, we had feudal lords with the same oligopoly/monopoly desires. In capitalism, unchecked greed leads to the destructive behavior of endless accumulation of resources at the expense of others... if you start out from a competitive vantage point. This is the \"\"free market\"\" that Republicans harp on about. It is the \"\"freedom\"\" to reap your rewards without any obstacles, even if reaping your rewards means gauging customers because you have swallowed up the competition. This is what Republicans want (and what libertarians are too naive to understand). How does this environment protect the small business or how does it benefit consumers?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "380c3c68cc9523c2cf5ce4f0e1ae6de8", "text": "Yes, the supply side is probably permanently restricted, and if NIMBY/regulations eased, there might be a temporary dip in prices (possibly even something that could be regarded as a bubble pop, but in reality that is very unlikely.) The self-regulating system I see is on the demand & employment side; companies can't keep raising wages but still require the workers, so they will have to sort workers by location: executives, creatives, and professionals in large cities; back-office white-collar in suburbs and/or smaller cities and production/manufacturing in rural areas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "113098f747720f61b0d9c4eaa06383c4", "text": "Definitely more in the economics wheelhouse, but I thought it would be interesting to write a research paper on the black market premium. With marijuana becoming legalized in more and more districts it's interesting to see the effect on prices. I live in Canada and many of my friends are very sure that prices will rise because of taxes. I am not so sure. I think economies of scale and getting rid of the black market premium will more than make up for the costs of regulation and taxation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "66788241f8ef7b8f692678e9eb732dd3", "text": "I wrote a simple monopoly simulation a few years back. The simulation handicapped one player for a set number of turns and then released the handicap eventually. Long story short, the initially handicapped player almost never recovered except when I handocapped the other players, bonussed the initially handicapped player and they had lucky turns. I ran this simulation tens of thousands of times. The reality is that there is a strong deterministic element to social and economic structures from generation to generation which require exceptional policy interventions or extraordinary players/people to overcome.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638c5e2377430f72c586c91c2bc33cd8", "text": "In my mind these are quite different, though maybe there is some vague analogy in meta-space that is escaping me. This isn't about manipulating scarcity or demand, it's about manipulating pricing. I guess the common thread is that it's about manipulating. :) The motivation is to skirt the commercial code requirement that you can't charge people differentially by ability-to-pay by dividing the market into a high end and a low end, and giving the people who can't pay as much a less desirable product. In this case, producing the high end product is easily possible to do for everyone, but if you put it at the high price, you'd get too few buyers and if you put it at the low price, you'd leave money on the table. Similar schemes have been used in airlines to charge businesses more by assuming they have to plan things last-minute and making the high price be around changeability of tickets, and assuming vacations are planned longer out and are really being sold to a market of people with less money to spend. By controlling the character of the sale in a situation where delivery of the product costs about the same, you maximize the revenue. It used to be, though no longer is, that phone calls were done this way, too. You got better pricing off-hours even though the phone lines were there 24/7 because it was assumed that the only people who must have phone calls, especially long distance, were businesses who could afford steeper prices. By calling off-hours calling a different product, you could charge less for it and thus do the only thing you really wanted, which is to get maximal amounts of money out of business and non-business people based on their ability to pay, but by a dodge that caused the products to be differentiated, so that it couldn't be said you were charging based on ability to pay.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2c08efd2c75e13de9c7f38c4a97928b", "text": "Sort of free market system when there are resource limits. The city doesn't sell the medallions for $2M, but they do artificially limit the number available. All the mediallion owners bought and sold the medallions on the grey market, and that drove up the price. They all speculated on something very risky. Just like Pogs or Beanie Babies, if the city suddenly decided to double the number of medallions, these owners would have likewise been screwed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed67165e8d1ab23a54057a4cfbe8b895", "text": "The real estate industry today is highly exploitative, you're right, but there are currently nothing stopping rents from rising. The major controls in place are are primarily supply constraints, which would lower prices if removed by allowing small, entrepreneurial developers and builders to create new housing more easily. There's also nothing to stop institutional investors from buying up all the housing right now, but those investors are generally not looking for high growth, they're looking for stable returns. Apartment buildings are viewed as similar to blue chip stock portfolios in that regard. Low growth, but also low risk. The reason capitalism wouldn't lead to monopoly is that it takes work both to gain resources, and to retain them, and the most reliable way to retain them is to reinvest them in the economy. Investment permits new businesses to grow, and new industries to form. It's precisely because the economy isn't limited to a fixed size that wealth of one group doesn't require to poverty of others. New value creation is the core of the theory, and nearly every living person has at least some capital (their body and mind) to begin employing toward value creation. I recommend reading Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson if you'd like to understand the theory behind why and how free market capitalism is supposed to work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c21b6aea43fc94e8abedc8eca29c22b", "text": "Because Amazon is not even close to being a monopoly. Look at Wal-Mart revenue to Amazon revenue (even with AWS and everything else). Not even close to being the largest retailer. They are just the largest e commerce retailer. Even there, they still aren't a monopoly. Add in the fact that a lot of amazon sales are marketplace sales (other online vendors selling through amazon), and you see that Amazon isn't even close to being a monopoly. Amazon is just really good at retail. Being so good at something that you gain market share is not covered under anti trust law.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f945bf26b892e20a45cbf7643d2e70e6", "text": "\"Anticompetitive behavior is only illegal if a monopoly does it, and amazon is not a monopoly. But with billions in the bank, they can act like one indefinitely, which makes me wonder if we should rethink those laws. Edit: \"\"only illegal if a monopoly does it\"\" might not be accurate in this case. It might just be that American courts are reluctant to take action against this sort of thing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9347d1a8b45a1637cdea5387206b16d", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.thenation.com/article/america-has-a-monopoly-problem-and-its-huge/) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) *** > Some century and a quarter ago, America was, in some ways, at a similar juncture: Political and economic power seemed concentrated in a few hands, in ways that were inconsonant with our democratic ideals. > Importantly, these laws were based on the belief that concentrations of economic power inevitably would lead to concentrations in political power. > Chicago economists would argue-with little backing in either theory or evidence-that one shouldn&#039;t even worry about monopoly: In an innovative economy, monopoly power would only be temporary, and the ensuing contest to become the monopolist maximized innovation and consumer welfare. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/78l28c/america_has_a_monopoly_problemand_its_huge/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~234550 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: power^#1 market^#2 economic^#3 economy^#4 Monopoly^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3de4ec2e00550ccd25279c393ad44e51", "text": "\"Mervis Diamond is voted as \"\"Best Place to Buy a Diamond\"\" by the readers of WashingtonPost.com. It is not a normal jewelry store. They specializes in diamond engagement rings and wedding bands, diamond studs, and much more. With their roots at diamond mines in South Africa, they maintain strong relationships and import all their own diamonds. Mervis has a reputation you can trust. For any budget, they will get you the biggest and most brilliant diamond possible, and save you some dollars in the process.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "037ff4f1b2515f5e2836409f3f382fe3", "text": "\"That has not been disproved. What the quote means is \"\"when [workers as a collective] earn more, [businesses as a collective] get more customers\"\". It's impossible to disprove this, because it's like a kind of economic tautology. It's like, if I give you five one dollar bills, how many five dollars will you have. What you mean to argue is that that's spacious, because the real world is more complicated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62a7fbd2c10236456f10836f11537282", "text": "Yes, but the move to regulated monopolies is tactical. Duke's deeper strategy is to prepare for the coming rise of distributed generation. Hiding behind regulatory barriers is a way to do that, and it gives them a stronger lobbying platform from which to attack DG, pushing for grid connection surcharges that will cripple rooftop solar. It's a copy of similar utility strategies in places like Spain and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef6379bc6d1ee825bfe2031af483978d", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/monopoly-power-wealth-income-inequality-by-mordecai-kurz-1-2017-09) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) *** > In a recent paper measuring the economic effects of monopoly power, I approximated normal levels above which profits or stock values are not purely chance events, but rather reflective of monopoly power. > With these levels, I measured the monopoly component of total stock values - what I call &quot;Monopoly wealth&quot; - and of monopoly profits or rent. > First, because most technology-based monopoly power does not violate existing antitrust laws, regulating IT will require new measures to weaken monopolies. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/7268jg/the_new_monopolists_by_mordecai_kurz/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~215755 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: monopoly^#1 wealth^#2 power^#3 rise^#4 firm^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1fbdb7f0cfaa480ca45cf1e7bfabb35", "text": "Without government intervention there's always people willing to buy to lower standards. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have government intervention but airliners have some of the biggest government intervention so I don't think it is an example of a natural monopoly.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f8c467343596c165ceefbb936f6b5c7f	Difference between GOOGL and GOOG	[ { "docid": "f31bbdd1b3e85bccd652680e16935819", "text": "Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6812554ac6a6fe2c714ab6e6f19a657c", "text": "\"Note that these used to be a single \"\"common\"\" share that has \"\"split\"\" (actually a \"\"special dividend\"\" but effectively a split). If you owned one share of Google before the split, you had one share giving you X worth of equity in the company and 1 vote. After the split you have two shares giving you the same X worth of equity and 1 vote. In other words, zero change. Buy or sell either depending on how much you value the vote and how much you think others will pay (or not) for that vote in the future. As Google issues new shares, it'll likely issue more of the new non-voting shares meaning dilution of equity but not dilution of voting power. For most of us, our few votes count for nothing so evaluate this as you will. Google's founders believe they can do a better job running the company long-term when there are fewer pressures from outside holders who may have only short-term interests in mind. If you disagree, or if you are only interested in the short-term, you probably shouldn't be an owner of Google. As always, evaluate the facts for yourself, your situation, and your beliefs.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "152fce244abd89f2dcc01c6bee38b7e4", "text": "Not a whole lot of people. Google thinks that by acquiring Meebo and dozens of other companies in the social space, it is bound to eventually succeed in social. Like, maybe my melding meebo with google analytics with gchat they'll come up with something. This kind of thinking is very typical of internet companies. Instead of going strong in a single direction the company hedges its bets by going down 50 different strategy paths, because hey, coding is cheap. The problem arises when this attitude becomes ingrained in the company's culture and nobody is left to take bold steps in a single direction. Apple is different, it takes bold steps time and time again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "368790e5eacbd6516fd0071c53808ddd", "text": "Google will be issuing Class C shares (under the ticker symbol GOOCV) to current GOOG holders in the beginning of April. The Class C shares and Class A shares will then change symbols, with the Class C shares trading under GOOG. This was announced on January 30th. Details are in this benzinga article: Projected Trading Timeline March 27 - April 2 Record Date - Payment Date Class C shares commence trading on March 27 as GOOCV on a when issued basis Class A shares continue to trade as GOOG, with entitlement to Class C shares Class A shares will also trade on an ex-distribution basis, without entitlement to the Class C shares, as GOOAV April 3 EX Date The ticker for the Class A shares will change from GOOG to GOOGL The ticker for the Class C shares will change from GOOCV to GOOG and commence regular way trading The ticker for the Class A shares that traded on an ex-distribution basis - GOOAV - will be suspended", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a08bb56370e585519e8d9129bd431e3", "text": "\"The 3-letter tickers are from a different era.... Nowadays the usage of tickers is more of a \"\"legacy\"\" tradition rather than a current necessity. As such they're no longer limited to 3 characters. And the characters don't have to be related to the actual name. For example a company named Alphabet is trading on NASDAQ under the ticker \"\"GOOGL\"\". It has 5 characters, not 3, and (almost) none of them appear in the name of the company (used to, but not anymore).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf0c53ecb77b5733dd567e72ab185bf9", "text": "SECTION \| CONTENT :--\|:-- Title \| Inside Gwyneth Paltrow’s GOOP Wellness Summit (HBO) Description \| For years, Gwyneth Paltrow was the all-American movie star who everyone loved. Then she became the lifestyle maven who everyone loved to hate. In 2008, Paltrow founded Goop, a wellness empire that centers around beauty tips, being your best self, and having lots of disposable income. It’s not everyone’s cup of anti-oxidant tea. But there are now enough die-hard Goopers to fill the brand’s first-ever Wellness Summit. It sold out in weeks. And VICE News got a ticket. Subscribe to VICE News her... Length \| 0:04:22 **** ^(I am a bot, this is an auto-generated reply \| )^[Info](https://www.reddit.com/u/video_descriptionbot) ^\| ^[Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=video_descriptionbot&subject=Feedback) ^\| ^(Reply STOP to opt out permanently)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35124c3aee792df13fe3a69a181155f4", "text": "\"Here is where I am confused. On the income statement I am looking at it has a line item in cogs that is \"\"change in jobs in progress\"\". Change in JIP = (Starting raw materials, wip, and finished goods) - (Ending raw materials, wip, and finished goods) for the accounting period. From what I researched cost of goods manufactured is added to cogs: \"\"The formula for the cost of goods manufactured is the costs of: direct materials used + direct labor used + manufacturing overhead assigned = the manufacturing costs incurred in the current accounting period + beginning work-in-process inventory - ending work-in-process inventory. A manufacturer's cost of goods sold is computed by adding the finished goods inventory at the beginning of the period to the cost of goods manufactured and then subtracting the finished goods inventory at the end of the period.\"\" So it isnt wip that is in the income statement it is change in inventory. Why do they include the \"\"change of inventory\"\" in cogs? Wont this just be material and labor that should be in for the next accounting period cog calculation?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e606f789dca0425270c4351a21c6ce39", "text": "you: >Pleading ignorance, what is the difference between revenue and sales? me: >[ignorance doesn't cut it in your case](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sales+vs+revenue) Or does your ignorance include ignorance of hyperlinks too? Hint: click the link and use this problem solving approach in the future when you again encounter something you don't understand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "766f0b7bc75111f5420516191bdb1f3a", "text": "\">The lawsuit was brought by a man named Chris Gillespie who had registered 763 domain names that included the word \"\"google.\"\" In response, Google claimed trademark infringement, and Gillespie was ultimately ordered to forfeit the domains. Gillespie then sued in a bid to invalidate the trademark. Wonder if their original aim was to cybersquat and/or hope Google would buy him out like [sometimes happens with domains](https://marketingland.com/google-apple-facebook-microsoft-among-major-brands-buying-sucks-domains-124248)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb60f1c81d5d9f3a858a3dbb56eb72af", "text": "Alphabet has about 40% on shore or 60%. I know it is 60/40 but forget which way. So way, way more than they really need. What Apple does is borrow against the offshore money when needed, Apple now has over $90b in debt and Google less than $4b. So Google would not have any problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3cde1111cf12137e9c7dceb8a35a1032", "text": "They are intertwined, that recommendation part is huge for both Google and Amazon when it comes to shopping. I bet Amazon took a lot of money from by having this smart recommendation system, no need to google it. Before you had to search for each company to order their product. Amazon means less search for them. They might be in different business but it doesn't mean one isn't shadowing the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa970a01d8fcfeb7b9715f9c8918061d", "text": "Two big differences from the Digg days: 1) apps exist, meaning a large percentage of users will not even notice the redesign if they don't use the website. 2) Digg changed both functionality and design, but I believe reddit is only proposing to change design (so far).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0c3de5770d5b18630e0252630045f06", "text": "\"The difference it that the headline I suggested removes the editorialization of the news. It is one thing to not have space for all the info. It is another to edit your headline to alter the meaning of your point. Someone dismissing a headline because it lacks a source is one thing (and with the words \"\"survey\"\" you at least expect to find the source in the article). Someone walking away from a headline wrongly assuming that ALL of the CEO's in the US got at least a 27% raise last year is another. I mean, this is the HuffPo. They ALL CAPS at least one word in every headline that is an action as a not so subtle demand on what you should do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aef2f28047642a8139930f59019ac3a8", "text": "BlackHatGold is a forum for most webmasters and internet marketing experts know and follow all the latest Search Engine Optimization (SEO) techniques on the internet at BHG. Some of the topics discussed on BHG include but are not restricted to: If you want to know about black hat SEO, visit the blackhatseo forum.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9f08fc15393c1e8664baf7badbf7311", "text": "It looks like GOOG did not have a pre-market trade until 7:14 am ET, so Google Finance was still reporting the last trade it had, which was in the after-hours session yesterday. FB, on the other hand, was trading like crazy after-hours yesterday and pre-market today as it had an earnings report yesterday.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85a55252527d24816a047802af3cb00c", "text": "Heard Teams was actually pretty good. I've used Slack and HipChat and both seemed fine for what they were. Random photos in HipChat were the best though not so productive (add on with keywords triggering Google Images I think?).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf4513d6e76ed2e63e58c4b9760adbe", "text": "On NASDAQ the ^ is used to denote other securities and / to denote warrents for the underlying company. Yahoo maybe using some other designators for same.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ca4c07829843bd4af6d20645fb38ffca	What's the average rate of return for some of the most mainstream index funds?	[ { "docid": "65c6fd60a3f05b5dec918ef145955bb7", "text": "\"When asking about rate of return it is imperative to specify the time period. Average over all time? Average over the last 10 years? I've heard a good rule of thumb is 8-10% on average for all stocks over all time. That may be overstated now given the current economic climate. You can also look up fund sheets/fact sheets for major index funds. Just Google \"\"SPY fund sheet\"\" or \"\"SPY fact sheet\"\". It will tell you the annualized % return over a few different periods.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a157fda4c51fedc223729bd221db6cc", "text": "\"This page from simplestockinvesting.com gives details of total returns for the S&P500 for each decade over the last 60 years, including total returns for the entire 60 year period. It is important to understand that, from an investors point of view, the total return includes both the change in index value (capital gain) plus dividends received. This total then needs to be adjusted for inflation to give the \"\"total real return\"\". As noted in the analysis provided, 44% of the total return from the S&P500 over the last 80 years comes from dividends. For the DowJones30, this site provides a calculator for total returns and inflation adjusted total returns for user selected periods. Finding comparable analysis for the NASDAQ market is more difficult. The NASDAQ market site provides gross values for total returns over fixed periods, but you will then need to do the arithmetic to calculate the equivalent average annual total returns. No inflation adjusted values for \"\"real\"\" returns are provided, so again you will need to combine inflation data from elsewhere and do the arithmetic.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8cd20273e0629c4575627b1c7bed9f18", "text": "\"i know that hedge funds shouldn't be compared with index funds. they do different things. they serve different functions. but when the headline is they are reporting big gains, and then they report that \"\"Ken Griffin’s main Wellington and Kensington funds at Citadel rose almost 7 percent.\"\" YTD, and \"\"Andreas Halvorsen’s Viking and an equity-focused quantitative fund at Renaissance are up more than 9 percent this year through July\"\" as reporting \"\"Big Gains\"\" it's a little silly when an index fund like SCHB is up 10.7% YTD with an ER of 0.03.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fda5d09dfa3620b45a28ae157bc5947", "text": "In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6346d8e03c6b05e863b35cf95b69f5fc", "text": "You asked some direct questions, here are some direct answers: 10% of your salary is a popular rule of thumb. An IRA account is something to consider, you can open one with any of the major discount brokers and select an S&P 500 index fund for your investment. You can let it sit. That's the beauty of an index fund, it simply matches the market and you don't have to worry about trying to beat the market because you ARE the market! The average annual return for the S&P 500 Index has been around 10% (since inception). That's no guarantee, and some years are more or less and up or down. Over the long run, it goes up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68eb08f84bf9bb435c3a622500d4f932", "text": "The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be31b0d0a6d96cd68b06fdd5cbdf2958", "text": "This is great. Thanks! So, just assuming a fund happened to average out to libor plus 50 for a given year, would applying that rate to the notional value of the index swaps provide a reasonable estimate of the drag an ETF investor would experience due to the cost associated with the index swaps? For instance, applying this to the hypothetical I linked to in the original question, they assumed fund assets of $100M with 2x leverage achieved through $85M of S&P500 stocks, $25M of S&P500 futures, and a notional value of the S&P500 swaps at $90M. So the true costs to an ETF investor would be: expense ratio + commissions on the $85M of S&P500 holdings + costs associated with $25M of futures contracts + costs associated with the $90M of swaps? And the costs associated with the $90M of swaps might be roughly libor plus 50?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32a43dc6ba76140884e09956a9c7bee8", "text": "There is some convergence, but the chart seems to indicate that 5 star funds end up on the upper end of average (3 stars) whereas 1 star funds end up on the lower end of average (1.9 stars) over the long term. I would have thought that the stars would be completely useless as forward looking indicators, but they seem to have been slightly useful?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f45d01927c79b6f74f74be100f036a2", "text": "Instead of buying in bulk, I invest the money in equity mutual funds, for an expected return of 12%, which is more than inflation. So, I make more returns. But at the cost of a slight risk, which I'm comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a16e38607c9d834e9d46ff63df423c5", "text": "No I get that. But if you don’t want risk, then buy bonds. Long term an S&P Index has very low risk. On the other hand, actively managed funds have fees that take out a ton of the gain that could be had. I don’t have time to look for the study but I read recently that 97% of actively managed funds were outperformed by S&P Indexes after fees. Now I don’t know about you but I think the risk of not picking a top 3% fund is probably higher than the safe return of index’s.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "365f3ac9b47ee04cd35b18cf28973dd1", "text": "\"If someone is guaranteeing X%, then clearly you can borrow money for less than X% (otherwise his claim wouldn't be remotely impressive). So why not do that if his 4% is guaranteed? :) Anyway, my answer would be that beating the market as a whole is a \"\"decent\"\" rate of return. I've always used the S&P 500 as a benchmark but you can use other indices or funds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "189960f9f192a13e5477662a6ef48f0f", "text": "\"There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"\"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\"\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5790337078c1c0fd24948a1f5458e974", "text": "Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc784201d1147155f79cd4e356cbe61a", "text": "edit: nevermind. i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds. For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates. For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks. So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac8519ecdfef7fe122c4fde90a549d", "text": "\"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely. This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting \"\"market rate of return\"\" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "514cb66269b47140c703c2ab852a8381", "text": "You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0c0764029404e59244d50be1b159dad", "text": "\"Here is my simplified take: In any given market portfolio the market index will return the average return on investment for the given market. An actively managed product may outperform the market (great!), achieve average market performance (ok - but then it is more expensive than the index product) or be worse than the market (bad). Now if we divide all market returns into two buckets: returns from active investment and returns from passive investments then these two buckets must be the same as index return are by definition the average returns. Which means that all active investments must return the average market return. This means for individual active investments there are worse than market returns and better then market returns - depending on your product. And since we can't anticipate the future and nobody would willingly take the \"\"worse than market\"\" investment product, the index fund comes always up on top - IF - you would like to avoid the \"\"gamble\"\" of underperforming the market. With all these basics out of the way: if you can replicate the index by simply buying your own stocks at low/no costs I don't see any reason for going with the index product beyond the convenience.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dd1e5e79194bcbfda2d7cee25cf4fd10	What is KIRCHSTRASSE on my statement bill?	[ { "docid": "77f21ce3d3ec8bae1cde5b264f8112e6", "text": "POS stands for Point of Sale (like a specific store location) which indicates that the purchase occurred by using your debit card, but it can also be the on-line transaction done via 3-D Secure. Checking with bank, they said that Kirchstrasse transaction could be related to direct marketing subscription service ordered on-line. Investigating further what I've found these kind of transactions are performed by 2BuySafe company registered at Kirchstrasse in Liechtenstein with went through the MultiCards on-line cashier which can be used for paying different variety of services (e.g. in this case it was polish on-line storage service called Chomikuj). These kind of transactions can be tracked by checking the e-mail (e.g. in gmail by the following query: after:2014/09/02 before:2014/09/02 Order). Remember, that if you still don't recognise your transaction, you should call your bank. I have found also some other people concerns about that kind of transactions who ask: Is 2BuySafe.com and www.multicards.com some sort of Scam? Provided answer says: MultiCards Internet Billing is a provider of online credit card and debit card processing and payment solutions to many retailers worldwide. MultiCards was one of the pioneer companies offering this type of service since 1995 and is a PCI / DSS certified Internet Payment Service Provider (IPSP) providing service to hundreds of retail websites worldwide MultiCards is a registered Internet Payment Service Provider and has implemented various fraud protection tools including, but not limited to, MultiCards Fraud Score Tool and 'Verified by Visa' and 'MasterCard SecureCode' to protect card holder's card details. 2BuySafe.com Is also Secured and Verified By GeoTrust The certificate should be trusted by all major web browsers (all the correct intermediate certificates are installed). The certificate was issued by GeoTrust. Entering Incorrect information can lead to a card being rejected as @ TOS 2BuySafe.com is hosted on the Multicards Server site", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f3c332fbce2b61f308b02c595062977e", "text": "Ok so this is the best information I could get! It is a guarantee from a financial institution that payment will be made for items or services once certain requirements are met. Let me know if this helps! I'll try to get more info in the meantime.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73bdc2d7b04b17f04f95015785ed7d48", "text": "As a customer I have proof of this happening. I'm an IT manager and have major fluctuations in invoices (of over 60% price changes) that I've had to battle CenturyLink to correct the price. Is there somewhere I can share this with to help the case? Caused about 4 months worth of headaches due to CenturyLink and this would remedy that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3bc9d43d0eb77da9ea929a62297be21", "text": "Suppose you have been paying interest on previous charges in the past. Your monthly statement is issued on April 12, and (since you just received your income tax refund), you pay it off in full on April 30. You don't charge anything to the card at all after April 12. Thus, on April 30, your credit card balance shows as zero since you just paid it off. But your April 12 statement billed you for interest only till April 12. So, on May 12, your next monthly bill will be for the interest for your nonzero balance from April 13 through April 30. Assuming that you still are not making any new charges on your card and pay off the May 12 bill in timely fashion, you will finally have a zero bill on June 12. What if you charge new items to your credit card after April 12? Well, your balance stopped revolving on April 30, and that's when interest is no longer charged on the new charges. But you do owe interest for a charge on April 13 (say) until April 30 when your balance is no longer revolving, and this will be added to your bill on May 12. Purchases made after April 30 will not be charged interest unless you fall off the wagon again and don't pay your May 12 bill in full by the due date of the bill (some time in early June).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b251bd183b378842ff6da7ed601a96b7", "text": "\"In the US, if your monthly statement was issued by the credit card company on January 1 and it showed a balance of $1000, then a payment must be made towards that balance by January 25 or so, not February 1 as you say, to keep the card in good standing. The minimum payment required to keep the card in good standing is specified in your monthly statement, and failure to meet this requirement can trigger various consequences such as an increase in the interest rate charged by the credit card company. With regard to interest charges, whether your purchase of $2000 on January 3 is charged interest or not depends entirely on what happened the previous two months. If you had paid both your monthly statements dated November 1 and December 1 of the previous year in full by the their respective due dates of November 25 and December 25, and the $1000 balance on the January 1 statement is entirely due to purchases (no cash advances) made in December, then you will not be charged interest on your January purchase of $2000 as long as you pay it off in full by February 25 (the charge will appear on your February 1 statement). But, if you had not paid your December 1 statement in full by December 25, then that $1000 billed to you on January 1 will include purchases made during December finance charges on the unpaid balance from the previous month plus finance charges on the purchases made during December. The finance charges will continue to accumulate during January until such time as you pay off the bill in full (these charges will appear on your February 1 statement), hopefully by the due date of January 25. But even if you pay off that $1000 in full on January 25, your charge of $2000 on January 3 will start to accumulate finance charges as of the day it hits the account and these finance charges will appear on your February 1 statement. If you paid off that $1000 on January 10, say, then maybe there will be no further finance charges on the $2000 purchase on January 3 after January 10 but now we are getting into the real fine print of what your credit card agreement says. Ditto for the case when you pay off that $1000 on January 2 and made the $2000 charge on January 3. You most likely will not be charged interest on that $2000 charge but again it depends on the fine print. For example, it might say that you will be charged interest on the average of the daily balances for January, but will not be charged interest on purchases during the February cycle (unless you miss the February 25 payment and the whole cycle starts all over again). As a general rule, it takes two monthly cycles of payment in full by the due date before one gets into the state of no finance charges for new purchases and effectively an \"\"interest-free\"\" loan of $2000 from January 3 (date of purchase) till February 25 (due date of payment). Matters become more complicated when cash advances are taken from a credit card which are charged interest from the day they are taken but don't trigger finance charges on new purchases or the so-called \"\"zero percent balance transfer offers\"\" are accepted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5b39b89ce6710159b211573177d6dc8", "text": "The trigger for a Currency Transaction Report is over $10K (spending or winning). Casinos are required by law to file a CTR above that level. You can walk away from a casino with your chips, but that will draw scrutiny from security and AML folks who are tracking them. If they think you are acting suspiciously they will file a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). Both CTRs and SARs are required by the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1e8de1e86545e7b11ad859682abc36d", "text": "\"What you are describing is a Chart of Accounts. It's a structure used by accountants to categorise accounts into sub-categories below the standard Asset/Liability/Income/Expense structure. The actual categories used will vary widely between different people and different companies. Every person and company is different, whilst you may be happy to have a single expense account called \"\"Lunch\"\", I may want lots of expense accounts to distinguish between all the different restaurants I eat at regularly. Companies will often change their chart of accounts over time as they decide they want to capture more (or less) detail on where a particular type of Expense is really being spent. All of this makes any attempt to create a standard (in the strict sense) rather futile. I have worked at a few places where discussions about how to structure the chart of accounts and what referencing scheme to use can be surprisingly heated! You'll have to come up with your own system, but I can provide a few common recommendations: If you're looking for some simple examples to get started with, most personal finance software (e.g. GnuCash) will offer to create an example chart of accounts when you first start a session.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "684d7001ce736907f3d1b01865d78eaf", "text": "Specifically I'm trying to understand this pargraph: >Stripping the German mobile-phone unit of its cash and increasing its net debt before the IPO could help lower the unit’s average cost of capital, said Carlos Winzer, a senior vice president at Moody’s Investors Service. >“Telefonica Deutschland had a very strong cash position and no debt, so this move will allow the German unit to have a more efficient balance sheet structure,” said Winzer, who has covered Telefonica for 20 years How does moving cash from the German unit to the Spanish Telefonica unit induce a more efficient balance sheet structure for the German unit? Appreciate any help!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55ef8c618430855d68de94b81cce631", "text": "Ich war lange auf der Suche nach einem Pflegedienst zur Tagespflege meiner Eltern in Hamburg und habe viele Services analysiert. Der hier ist mir bisher am besten aufgefallen, weil wir einen Migrationshintergrund haben und dieser Dienst genau dafür gedacht ist. Hier sind ein paar Bookmarks vom AKS Pflegeteam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fdb07dc08015b2b1f9f1c3c89777d96", "text": "\"The simplest answer to why you can't see it in your online statement is a design/business decision that was made, most probably originally to make online statements differ as little as possible from old fashioned monthly printed statements; the old printed statements never showed holds either. Some banks and card services actually do show these transactions online, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions - though with business/commercial accounts I saw this more, but it was still rare. This is also partly due to banks fearing lots of annoying phone calls from customers and problems with merchants, as people react to \"\"hey, renting that car didn't cost $500!\"\" and don't realize that the hold is often higher than the transaction amount and will be justified in a few days (or weeks...), etc - so please don't dispute the charges just yet. Behind the scenes, I've had bankers explain it to me thusly (the practice has bitten me before and it bothered me a lot, so I've talked to quite a few bankers about this): There are two kinds of holds: \"\"soft holds\"\" and \"\"hard holds\"\". In a soft hold, a merchant basically asks the bank, \"\"Hey, is there at least $75 in this account?\"\" The bank responds, and then has it's own individually set policy per account type as to how to treat that hold. Sometimes they reserve no money whatsoever - you are free to spend that money right out and rack up NSF fees to your heart's content. Yet some policies are to treat this identically to a hard hold and keep the money locked down until released. The hard hold is treated very much like an actual expenditure transaction, in that the money is locked and shown as no longer available to you. This varies by bank - some banks use an \"\"Account Balance\"\" and an \"\"Available Balance\"\", and some have done away with these dual terms and leave it up to you to determine what your balance is and what's \"\"available\"\" (or you have to call them). The key difference in the hard hold and a real expenditure is, technically, the money is still in your bank account; your bank has merely \"\"reserved\"\" it, earmarking it for a specific purchase (and gently promising the merchant they can have their money later), but the biggest difference is there is a time-limit. If a merchant does not process a completion to the transaction to claim the money, your bank will lift the hold after a period of time (I've seen 7-30 days as typical in the US, again varying by institution) returning your money to your balance that is available for purchasing and withdrawal. In every case, any vaguely decent banking institution allows you to call them, speak to some bank employee, and they can look up your account and inform you about the different sort of holds that are on your account that are not pending/completed purchase transactions. From a strictly cynical (perhaps rightly jaded) point of view, yes this is also used as a method to extort absurdly high fees especially from customers who keep a low balance in their account. I have had more than one bank charge NSF fees based on available balances that were due to holds made by gas pumps, for instance, even though my actual \"\"money in my account\"\" never went below $0 (the holds were for amounts larger than the actual transaction). And yes, the banks usually would waive those fees if you bothered to get someone on the phone or in person and made yourself a nuisance to the right person for long enough, but they made you work for it. But I digress.... The reality is that there are lots of back and forth and middle-men in transactions like this, and most banks try to hide as much of this from you the client as possible, partly because its a huge confusing hassle and its part of why you are paying a bank to handle this nonsense for you to start with. And, as with all institutions, rules and policies become easily adjusted to maximize revenues, and if you don't keep sizable liquid minimum balances (100% of the time, all year long) they target you for fees. To avoid this without having fat wads of extra cash in those accounts, is use an entirely disconnected credit card for reservations ONLY - especially when you are traveling and will be making rentals and booking hotels. Just tell them you wish to pay with a different card when you are done, and most merchants can do this without hassle. Since it's a credit card with monthly billing you can often end up with no balance, no waiting around for a month for payments to clear, and no bank fees! It isn't 100%, but now I never - if I can possibly avoid it - use my debit/bank card to \"\"reserve\"\" or \"\"rent\"\" anything, ever.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4df97f35153bdedf4bf9c3089a968a4", "text": "You're most definitely being scammed. You're being asked all the information required to steal your identity and take over your bank account. And Austria is land-locked, it has no west coast (or any coast, for that matter).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "845b0104a1698b092c1d865f1661ebdc", "text": "A loan is most generally a liability, a part of the balance sheet. Expenses & income are part of the income statement. Income is the net of revenues after expenses. The interest is an expense on the income statement, but the loan itself does not reside there unless if it is defaulted and forgiven. Then it would become a revenue or contra-expense, depending on the methodology. The original purpose of the income statement is to show the net inflows of short term operational accruals which would exclude new borrowing and repaid loans. The cash flow statement will better show each cash event such as borrowing debt, repaying debt, or paying off a bill. To show how a loan may have funded a bill, which in theory it directly did not because an entity, be it a person or business, is like a single tank of water with multiple pipes filling and multiple pipes extracting, so it is impossible to know which exact inflow funded which exact outflow unless if there is only one inflow per period and one outflow per the same period. That being said, with a cash flow statement, the new loan will show a cash inflow when booked under the financing portion, and paying a bill will show a cash outflow when booked under the operating portion. With only those two transactions booked and an empty balance sheet beforehand, it could be determined that a new loan funded a bill payment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4510cf6016c180b947eab26ae6b837c", "text": "\"Here's a very basic MySQL query I put together that does what I want for income/expense report. Basically it reports the same info as the canned income/expense report, but limits it those income/expenses associated with a particular account (rental property, in my case). My main complaint is the output \"\"report\"\" is pretty ugly. And modifying for a different rental property requires changing the code (I could pass parameters etc). Again, the main \"\"issue\"\" in my mind with GnuCash income/expense report is that there is no filter for which account (rental property) you want income/expenses for, unless you set up account tree so that each rental property has its own defined incomes and expenses (i.e. PropertyA:Expense:Utility:electric). Hopefully someone will point me to a more elegant solution that uses the report generator built into GnuCash. THanks! SELECT a2.account_type , a4.name, a3.name, a2.name, SUM(ROUND(IF(a2.account_type='EXPENSE',- s2.value_num,ABS(s2.value_num))/s2.value_denom,2)) AS amt FROM ( SELECT s1.tx_guid FROM gnucash.accounts AS a1 INNER JOIN gnucash.splits AS s1 ON s1.account_guid = a1.guid WHERE a1.name='Property A' ) AS X INNER JOIN gnucash.splits s2 ON x.tx_guid = s2.tx_guid INNER JOIN gnucash.accounts a2 ON a2.guid=s2.account_guid INNER JOIN gnucash.transactions t ON t.guid=s2.tx_guid LEFT JOIN gnucash.accounts a3 ON a3.guid = a2.parent_guid LEFT JOIN gnucash.accounts a4 ON a4.guid = a3.parent_guid WHERE a2.name <> 'Property A' # get all the accounts associated with tx in Property A account (but not the actual Property A Bank duplicate entries. AND t.post_date BETWEEN CAST('2016-01-01' AS DATE) AND CAST('2016-12-31' AS DATE) GROUP BY a2.account_type ,a4.name, a3.name, a2.name WITH ROLLUP ; And here's the output. Hopefully someone has a better suggested approach!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52529f12db72f8cbe206f66496498e4f", "text": "I just thought I'd follow this up as it's now resolved. I spoke with citizens advice and they hadn't really got any advice other than they legally can't keep the money. I then contacted Barclays (as this is who was sent the money) they were very helpful and assured me that if my estate agent went into the bank with proof of transaction and their details then they'd definately follow this up and resolve it. The day after speaking to Barlcays online, my estate agent contacted me to say the money has now appeared back in their bank. So it looks like the previous letter sent back from TSB must have been an automated letter like a timeout and actually in the background Barclays must have still been processing it. Regards Liam", "title": "" }, { "docid": "605de58abfb215a1ea61182e4092b8d4", "text": "\"Einige Begriffe in persönliche Finanzen sind genauso wichtig, oder gebrauchte so häufig, wie \"\"Gefahr.\"\" Dennoch sind einige Begriffe als ungenau definiert. Im Allgemeinen wenn Finanzberater oder die Medien über Anlagerisiko sprechen, ist ihren Fokus auf die historische Volatilität des Vermögenswerts bzw. der Investitionen in der Diskussion. Berater beschriften als aggressive oder riskante eine Investition, die anfällig für wilde Preis-Rotationen in der Vergangenheit gewesen ist. Die vermeintliche Unsicherheit und Unvorhersehbarkeit für die zukünftige Wertentwicklung dieser Investition wird als Risiko wahrgenommen. Vermögenswerte gekennzeichnet durch Preise, die historisch in einem engeren Bereich von Spitzen und Täler verschoben wurden gelten als Konservativer. Diese Erklärung wird leider selten angeboten, so dass es oft nicht klar ist, dass der Volatilität Maßstab verwendet wird, um die Gefahr zu messen. Bevor Sie sich Risiko mehr formell, lohnen sich ein paar Bemerkungen. Auf der praktischen Ebene können wir sagen, dass Risiko die Chance, ist dass Ihre Investition niedrigere Renditen als erwartet oder sogar einen Verlust Ihrer gesamten Investition vermitteln. Sie wahrscheinlich auch sind besorgt über die Chance, Ihre Anlageziele nicht erfüllen. Denn Sie investieren jetzt so können Sie etwas später tun (z. B. für Hochschule bezahlen oder bequem zurückziehen). Jede Investition trägt ein gewisses Risiko, einschließlich den möglichen Verlust des Prinzipals, und es kann keine Garantie dafür, dass alle Investment-Strategie erfolgreich sein wird. Deshalb ist es sinnvoll, die Arten von Risiken sowie das Ausmaß der Gefahr, die Sie auswählen, und Wege, sie zu handhaben lernen zu verstehen. WAS SIE WAHRSCHEINLICH BEREITS WISSEN, ÜBER DAS RISIKO Auch wenn Sie nie über das Thema gedacht haben vielleicht, sind Sie wahrscheinlich bereits vertraut mit vielen Arten von Risiko von Lebenserfahrungen. Beispielsweise ist es sinnvoll, dass ein Skandal oder Klage, bei der ein Unternehmen, wahrscheinlich einen Tropfen in den Preis der Aktien dieses Unternehmens, zumindest vorübergehend verursachen wird. Wenn ein Autohersteller einen Homerun mit einem neuen Modell trifft, könnte das schlechte Nachrichten für konkurrierende Autohersteller sein. Im Gegensatz dazu könnte eine Verlangsamung und Börse Konjunkturrückgangs die meisten Unternehmen und ihre Aktienkurse, nicht nur in einer Branche Schaden. Allerdings gibt es viele verschiedene Arten von Risiken zu beachten. Volatilität ist ein guter Ort zu beginnen, da wir die Elemente des Risiko genauer untersuchen. WAS MACHT VOLATILITÄT RISKANT? Nehmen wir an, dass Sie vor 20 Jahren $10.000 in jedem der zwei Investmentfonds investiert hatten und beide Fonds durchschnittliche jährliche Rendite von 10 Prozent produziert. Stellen Sie sich weiter, dass man dieser hypothetischen Mittel verlässliche Freddy kehrte genau 10 Prozent jedes Jahr. Die jährliche zurückgeben des zweiten Fonds, Jekyll & Hyde, wechselten--5 Prozent ein Jahr, 15 Prozent der nächsten, 5 Prozent wieder im dritten Jahr und So weiter. Was wäre diese zwei Investitionen Wert am Ende der 20 Jahre? Es scheint offensichtlich, dass wenn die durchschnittliche jährliche Rendite von zwei Anlagen identisch sind, ihre Endwerte, zu werden. Aber das ist ein Fall, wo sich Intuition stimmt. Wenn Sie die 20-jährige Anlagerenditen in diesem Beispiel in einem Diagramm darstellen, sehen Sie, dass verlässliche Freddy Endwert mehr als $2.000 mehr als das aus der Variablen gibt der Jekyll ist & Hyde. Das Defizit wird viel schlimmer, wenn Sie verbreitern die jährlichen Schwankungen (z.B. Plus oder Minus 15 Prozent, anstelle von Plus oder Minus 5 Prozent). Das folgende Beispiel veranschaulicht eine der Auswirkungen der Investitionen Preisschwankungen: kurzfristige Schwankungen der Renditen sind eine Belastung für langfristiges Wachstum. (Hinweis: Dies ist ein hypothetisches Beispiel und spiegelt nicht die Leistung einer bestimmten Investition. In diesem Beispiel übernimmt die Wiederanlage der alle Einnahmen und berücksichtigt keine Steuern oder Transaktionskosten.) Zwar Performance in der Vergangenheit keine Garantie für zukünftige Ergebnisse, ist historisch die negative Auswirkungen der kurzfristigen Preisschwankungen verringert worden, Investitionen über einen längeren Zeitraum zu halten. Aber auf eine längere Haltedauer zählen bedeutet, dass zusätzliche Planung gefordert ist. Sie sollten kein Geld investieren, die bald in eine flüchtige Investition benötigt werden. Andernfalls könnten Sie gezwungen sein, die Investition um Bargeld zu einem Zeitpunkt zu erhöhen, wenn die Investition mit Verlust ist, zu verkaufen. [Lesen sie hier mehr](http://www.ameripriseadvisors.com/team/abney-associates/articles/9/understanding-risk/)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bc0ca2a3f1be2d286c1a259a8c7fbdc", "text": "In the Anti-Money Laundering World ( AML) , structuring consists of the division ( breaking up) of cash transactions, deposits and withdrawals, with the intent to avoid the Currency Transaction Reporting ( CTR) filings. In your case the issue is not structuring but the fact that you have another person ( unknown to the bank) depositing cash , event if it is above the CTR threshold, for you to withdraw later . The entire scenario raises a lot of questions.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1b10c208e6a10472043ca10fee09750f	How should I value personal use television for donation?	[ { "docid": "b9e300e15d7fc0259b17bb812af02b9a", "text": "IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c18cae75fef4be13785d41f25b2afd15", "text": "The usual lazy recommendation: See what similar objects, in similar condition, of similar age, have sold for recently on eBay. That establishes a fair market value by directly polling the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5acb6556d05ac1c627a66d37616051f8", "text": "Is it a tube television, digital, analog, what? Tube televisions are no longer made in (or imported to) the U.S., and if it's an analog set then it would require a digital converter just for anyone to use it for watching broadcast signals, since analog television signals are gone and have been replaced by DTV. That makes all the difference in the world as far as valuation. If it doesn't have resale value to begin with then I doubt you can put a real value on it for donation purposes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "525e392a0ac6242236018d295cf5f8fc", "text": "I used TurboTax last year. It had a section for donations where it figured out the amounts of the IRS approved values for a donation. You would need to know the size of the television and the current condition it is in. He's a screenshot - though it's not from the TV section. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Taxes-101/Video--How-to-Estimate-the-Value-of-Clothing-for-IRS-Deductions/INF13870.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us TurboTax offers a free online tool called ItsDeductible that does the same thing (though I haven't tried it). Unfortunately, I don't have the current one with TV's to give you the range of amounts that apply to yours. --I am not affiliated with TurboTax and did not receive it for free for a review.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c6d279fcc0efcb58c986d4ec89ff6752", "text": "Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95fb081008312c2dfafa836812aa2973", "text": "I stopped paying that $1000/year charge for cable seven years ago. Today I watch about an hour of television a week. Some weeks I will watch one sports game. Meanwhile I've been able to spend on the order of $10,000 for healthier, more productive activities. I've noticed that people don't talk about what they watched on television much anymore, so I'm not missing out on social interactions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c9742fdc9f1838021e9391b7022be4c", "text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c192d27c9016708470d14d6d7cf7fe62", "text": "It's a good question. We can't know for sure, but here are some things to think about. Paypal advertises a discounted transaction rate for non-profit organizations. In the U.S. at least, the rate they advertise is 2.2% + 0.30 USD. There are lots of things that can come into play here, such as international rates or any special deal that Wikimedia has struck with Paypal, but it seems reasonable to guess that of your 2€ donation, Wikipedia sees perhaps 1.65€. Note that most of the fee is a flat rate; of the next 2€ in your donation, Wikipedia gets 1.96€. Direct debit probably has lower fees. Paypal has to account for some credit card transaction fees in their fee structure, and direct debit does not. Therefore, I would guess that to maximize your gift, direct debit might result a little better than Paypal. Charities, in general, don't want to tell you the best way to donate, because they want it to be as easy for you as possible, and don't want to discourage any type of donation at all. They are very happy to get any donation, even if one method over another results in slightly higher fees. Wikimedia, in particular, offers many different options for donating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cae8238f6e26c4d379e57e9b1da0a6c", "text": "How much is your time worth This has been useful for me, judging things based on how much their time value is worth to me, weighted more heavily than their actual worth. For instance, there was a time when I used to work on the weekends and pay to have my laundry done. Doing the laundry myself would have cost 25 cents, but taken two hours at least. Since I was making $45 an hour, I would have lost $90 dollars by doing my laundry, instead of paying specialists $28 to do it for me, much better than I would. Your own capital should begin growing at a rate that makes many MANY things worth less than the time it takes for you to entertain it. So in your cable bill example, you shouldn't have argued for a $5 credit for two hours, unless you make $2.25 an hour, after tax. This is simplistic, as you would extrapolate how much this would cost you over a year or two, but such cost benefit analysis' become easy with this simple concept. This can also be used to rationalize your lavish expenditures. Such as not really comparing the costs for a flight, because its a 2 hour flight for $400 and you've found yourself making at least $200 an hour with your $416,000 annual earnings and capital gains. This will cure your frugality while retaining safe guards on your spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "849a6a57fd61f68f164e32543f5b3641", "text": "To be safe you should donate the printer to the charity. Or even better, have the charity purchase it and you donate a equivalent number of dollars directed towards purchasing the equipment. Once your wife no longer volunteers with the charity it should be returned to the charity because they own it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7dc4a7bc4d9f5710563a2dd7ce1ce7c0", "text": "I stopped paying for television from my cable company a few years ago. I have Netflix, Hulu Plus, Roku, DVDs, Bluray, ect. The only thing I wish I had that I don't is HBOgo. I'm in the same boat about commercials as the author. When I'm at someone else's house and a commercial comes on, it is a novel thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7f98dd7ed1bf4829b4c4624c3f71b51", "text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a334c4c2ac21564debbc5a94d2f563f7", "text": "If you plan on trading it, it's a social construct. If you plan on keeping it for yourself, then the value is personal. Not always easy to disentangle the two. Sometimes people are more willing to risk personal safety to rescue items of sentimental value...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21db1c5902c3904dcba5e7cddfd17f69", "text": "You are thinking of something similar to [Patreon](www.patreon.com) then but more automated? I don't quite think automation works for this because you might not want to give every site you visit money, even if you visit it often in a short period of time (e.g. while doing research into cults you might not want to give the WBC money).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98a515cbd0567da8e4039af7b5522f27", "text": "That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a10cea3aa1bde01025755e8453bcdc66", "text": "\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0322d184b8afaede4eb61aef8169642", "text": "\"in the U.S. (for @Software Monkey) books are treated just like any other donation, you look at comparable sales: IRS Link. Sounds like a pain to do each book manually. TurbtoTax has \"\"ItsDeductable\"\" product that suppose to help you calculate the value of donated items.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb34f2e5de976f061f43e82136d3aead", "text": "\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70d0915408fb98db5d2f5e7cb0c31731", "text": "Assuming cell A1 contains the number of trades: will price up to A1=100 at 17 each, and the rest at 14 each. The key is the MAX and MIN. They keep an item from being counted twice. If X would end up negative, MAX(0,x) clamps it to 0. By extension, if X-100 would be negative, MAX(0, X-100) would be 0 -- ie: that number doesn't increase til X>100. When A1=99, MIN(a1,100) == 99, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=100, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=101, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 1. Of course, if the 100th item should be $14, then change the 100s to 99s.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b12c73ce781071bf177c7ec37fc3499c	Converting bank statements to another currency?	[ { "docid": "b0faa9b09d609afbd8ea2deaf040ae91", "text": "If the account is not dollar-denominated, I would say it does not make sense at all to have dollar-denominated statements. Such a statement would not even be accurate for any reasonable amount of time (since FX rates constantly fluctuate). This would be a nightmare for accounting purposes. If you really need to know the statements in USD, I think the best practice would be to perform the conversion yourself using Excel or some similar software.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c673ccd11ad9d1f7ff188d2f48f926e3", "text": "How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0917358d7171dfb49f861e4ea004f0e4", "text": "GBP is widely traded currency and it is definitely possible to send GBP internationally with out any conversion. Of late banks are trying to maximize the FX and if they see a Euro country the sending bank assumes the beneficiary account is in Euro and converts to get FX spread than letting the beneficiary bank decide. Keep complaining to your bank and then the sending bank will put your account in exception and not convert next payments", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd10a69b01f073d534e36116efede61d", "text": "\"I haven't used transfer wise, so can't speak to their price. Regardless of what service you use, what you should look for is whether the conversion price is greater than how much you think the currency's price will move. Example: if your bank charges ~8% on any currency exchange, you should ask yourself whether you think the pound (or whatever currency) will drop by >8% within whatever time frame you've set for yourself. If not, you're better off keeping your money in that currency. I checked out their site and it does look like transferwise is pretty inexpensive, around .9% in transaction costs. So again, ask yourself whether you think the pound will drop by 1% in your time frame. Doesn't seem like a lot, but also consider that currencies typically fluctuate by just a few tenths of a percentage per day. I know you're probably looking for an answer like \"\"pound will drop, sell it all,\"\" but I don't know enough about currencies to be giving advice there. I would definitely pay attention to Brexit negotiations though, as that will be one of the biggest influences on both currencies for quite some time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531", "text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3da6581a70d5dbae8ecdb677ea0df69d", "text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8568a818f3a0c4a7473017be99a53d48", "text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f04505861658ff9ebfb9874a0c99f59c", "text": "\"Your bank Lloyds sent the Australian bank $500 AUD, having converted $317.90 GBP at a rate of 1.5728 AUD per GBP which was slightly less than the published rate which normally applies to transfers measured in hundred thousands if not millions of pounds. Using the published rate amounts to an unstated fee of 11 AUD which you are not complaining about. You also paid a fee to Lloyds of 20 GBP which you disclosed after I had posted this answer. The Australian bank refused to accept the payment because the account to which the money had to be deposited was closed. Perhaps, instead of just sending back $500 AUD, it converted the amount to GBP (less its fee of what I suspect is $60 AUD) and sent it back. Notice that the bank rate of 1.592 AUD per GBP says that 276.58 GBP is what you get from a tad over $440 AUD, and so perhaps St George's charged you a $60 AUD fee for the conversion while converting the rest ($440 AUD) to GBP. Or maybe Lloyds got $500 AUD from St Georges and charged you a $60 AUD fee for converting it to GBP. Regardless of who did the conversion, it is also possible that the rate you got (not quite as good as the published rate) corresponds to $450 AUD converting to 276.58 GBP and a $50 AUD fee for the conversion. You said I was told by Lloyds TSB that St. Georges wouldn't levy any charges, as they would be paid a separate \"\"agent's fee\"\". This might have been told to you as \"\"St. Georges will not be levying any charges if you send $500 AUD for deposit to the account in Australia and your payee will get exactly $500 AUD if you pay us 317.90 GBP plus 20 GBP as our conversion fee today. If you want to send GBP instead, we cannot tell you how much to send because St. George's will levy a charge for conversion to AUD, and the conversion will be at the rate then prevailing. So your payee may receive more or less than $500 AUD.\"\" Perhaps, wanting to send exactly $500 AUD, you chose to pay Lloyds TSB and send AUD. But, since the account was closed, the money came back, and so you ended up paying yet another conversion fee. The questions are, who charged the second fee? As Muro said in a comment, it should be listed somewhere on the itemized statement. and is it a reasonable charge? I think $50 or $60 AUD is excessive but, then, I am not a bank, and maybe that is what their standard (minimum) charge is. As I said in my comment, the charge is usually a percentage of the amount transferred subject to a minimum levy that the bank sets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3", "text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162", "text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d14c708264ea9f9d8eb46a76dd39c6e1", "text": "It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef", "text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e6aa2924261e912bdbcdaa2d5fed67f", "text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e6ce529c96e20905f0789621c8fcfea", "text": "The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e72fadc852581a598e99e7afbbebe1b", "text": "There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf9423b9d4b925b1d38d1d09b0f2d4a8", "text": "\"My solution when I lived in Singapore was to open an account with HSBC, who at the time also had branches in the US. When I was home, I used the same debit card, and the bank only charged a nominal currency exchange fee (since it never had to leave their system, it was lower than had it left their system). Another option, though slightly more costly, is to use Paypal. A third option is to cash-out in CAD and convert to USD at a \"\"large\"\" institution - the larger your deposit/conversion balance, the better the rate you can get. To the best of my knowledge, this shouldn't be taxable - presuming you've paid the taxes on it to start with, and you've been filing your IRS returns every year you've been in Canada.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b2353046c0cb480a7e0e0c945ac09780	Do buyers of bond ETFs need to pay for accrued interest?	[ { "docid": "bbda2280304228ee54efc1f6aa7d9d0b", "text": "No. Investors purchase ETFs' as they would any other stock, own it under the same circumstances as an equity investment, collecting distributions instead of dividends or interest. The ETF takes care of the internal operations (bond maturities and turnover, accrued interest, payment dates, etc.).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "48c24049376a347959f8f744d9e66517", "text": "Bond ETFs are traded like normal stock. It just so happens to be that the underlying fund (for which you own shares) is invested in bonds. Such funds will typically own many bonds and have them laddered so that they are constantly maturing. Such funds may also trade bonds on the OTC market. Note that with bond ETFs you're able to lose money as well as gain depending on the situation with the bond market. The issuer of the bond does not need to default in order for this to happen. The value of a bond (and thus the value of the bond fund which holds the bonds) is, much like a stock, determined based on factors like supply/demand, interest rates, credit ratings, news, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d061afb0577cd1166e1f687175edde2", "text": "I let someone else pick and chose which junk bonds to buy and which to sell. So instead of holding individual bonds in my portfolio I hold an ETF that is managed by a man with a PHD and which buys junk bonds. I get a yearly 15.5% ROI, paid monthly. Buy and hold and you can get a good return for the rest of your life. It is only speculation when you sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e4bbd3e7d72c51119d1690928f018d4", "text": "\"The federal funds rate is one of the risk-free short-term rates in the economy. We often think of fixed income securities as paying this rate plus some premia associated with risk. For a treasury security, we can think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) The term premium is a bit extra the bond pays because if you hold a long term bond, you are exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that rates will generally rise after you buy, making your bond worth less. The relation is more complex if people have expectations of future rate moves, but this is the general idea. Anyway, generally speaking, longer term bonds are exposed to more interest rate risk, so they pay more, on average. For a corporate bond, we think this way: (interest rate) = (fed funds rate) + (term premium) + (default premium) where the default premium is some extra that the bond must pay to compensate the holder for default risk, which is the risk that the bond defaults or loses value as the company's prospects fall. You can see that corporate and government bonds are affected the same way (approximately, this is all hand-waving) by changes in the fed funds rate. Now, that all refers to the rates on new bonds. After a bond is issued, its value falls if rates rise because new bonds are relatively more attractive. Its value rises if rates on new bonds falls. So if there is an unexpected rise in the fed funds rate and you are holding a bond, you will be sad, especially if it is a long term bond (doesn't matter if it's corporate or government). Ask yourself, though, whether an increase in fed funds will be unexpected at this point. If the increase was expected, it will already be priced in. Are you more of an expert than the folks on wall-street at predicting interest rate changes? If not, it might not make sense to make decisions based on your belief about where rates are going. Just saying. Brick points out that treasuries are tax advantaged. That is, you don't have to pay state income tax on them (but you do pay federal). If you live in a state where this is true, this may matter to you a little bit. They also pay unnaturally little because they are convenient for use as a cash substitute in transactions and margining (\"\"convenience yield\"\"). In general, treasuries just don't pay much. Young folk like you tend to buy corporate bonds instead, so they can make money on the default and term premia.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fb4054783d74edb5a5d34db8ab34a4d", "text": "The expense ratio reduces the return of the ETF; your scenario of paying 100.0015 is that of a load. Most (all?) ETFs can be bought without paying a load (sales charge as a percent of amount invested), and some ETFs can be bought without paying a brokerage fee (fixed or variable charge for a buy transaction just like buying any other stock through the brokerage) because the brokerage has waived it. Your broker might charge fees for both buying and selling shares in an ETF, but in any case, this is quite separate from the expense ratio.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9fcf629935b043b341fd3f42e91620", "text": "\"Just to confirm, you don't pay interest when holding a bond, the issuer of the bond pays you interest. The idea of calculating \"\"present value\"\" is as you suggest. You discount future payments using an appropriate rate. These future payments include both the coupon payments you receive through the life of the bond and the principal repayment at the maturity of the bond - each should be discounted from the due date of the payment to today's date. A typical rate to use would be the interest you yourself could earn by investing elsewhere (this gives you some idea of how much it would cost to get those payments another way), or perhaps some standard rate, for example the interbank rates such as LIBOR or FEDFUNDS.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08c3f5e83dd7e845ab352290781bcd70", "text": "Dividends are not paid immediately upon reception from the companies owned by an ETF. In the case of SPY, they have been paid inconsistently but now presumably quarterly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89f95203df501325a17cfa064856c2a8", "text": "I dont really understand how this would work. In stocks, you are buying a share in a company at a specific price that fluctuates with the value of the company. In bonds, you are lending money for a specific time period with the hopes of getting your money back plus interest. Is actual money going to be lent? Are there going to be different bond products for each company every time they issue new debt? It just doesn't seem practical to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c54acf90c8b30c09d6c9550bc7ab692", "text": "Usually the market. I'm a company issuing a 5-year bond with 5% coupon payments. It goes on the market to whoever is willing to pay the most for it. The prices that those investors pay implies what the required yield is. For instance, if they're willing to pay exactly face value for the bond, then that shows they have a required return of (in this case) 5%. Paying more or less for the bond implies a require rate less than or greater than 5%, with the exact amounts derivable with basic algebra. The same principle can be applied to any other asset.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec247f0c4dd08895e0d66bc032d9b8b1", "text": "The key two things to consider when looking at similar/identical ETFs is the typical (or 'indicative') spread, and the trading volume and size of the ETF. Just like regular stocks, thinly traded ETF's often have quite large spreads between buy and sell: in the 1.5-2%+ range in some cases. This is a huge drain if you make a lot of transactions and can easily be a much larger concern than a relatively trivial difference in ongoing charges depending on your exact expected trading frequency. Poor spreads are also generally related to a lack of liquidity, and illiquid assets are usually the first to become heavily disconnected from the underlying in cases where the authorized participants (APs) face issues. In general with stock ETFs that trade very liquid markets this has historically not been much of an issue, as the creation/redemption mechanism on these types of assets is pretty robust: it's consequences on typical spread is much more important for the average retail investor. On point #3, no, this would create an arbitrage which an authorized participant would quickly take advantage of. Worth reading up about the creation and redemption mechanism (here is a good place to start) to understand the exact way this happens in ETFs as it's very key to how they work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4571314d35b39aaa79c3fad8a33a7265", "text": "Yes, just set aside the amount of money. If you buy a cfd long in a stock for a 1000$, set aside 1000$. If you buy a cfd short, set aside the same amount and include a stoploss at the value at which the money is depleted. In this case however, you can stil lose more, because of opening gaps. By doing this, you replicate the stock return, apart from the charged interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6afaace264db953883616071a4e578d", "text": "This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c224346604b8d4e798f6453fcb10053b", "text": "stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42f339e971647b05cea2661ae64b1c55", "text": "\"The answer is yes. And the reason is if today's interest rates are lower than the interest rate (coupon) at which the bond was issued. The bond's \"\"lifetime value\"\" is 100 cents on the dollar. That's the principal repayment that the investor will get on the maturity date. But suppose the bond's coupon rate is 4% while today's interest rate is 3%. Then, people who bought the bond at 100 would get 4% on their money, while everyone else was getting 3%. To compensate, a three year bond would have to rise to almost 103 so that the so-called yield to maturity\"\" would be 3%. Then there would be a \"\"capital loss\"\" (from almost 103 to 100) that would exactly offset the extra interest, that is 1% \"\"more\"\" for three years. If today's interest rates are negative (as they were from time to time in the 1930s, and in the present decade), the \"\"negative\"\" interest rates will prevent the buyer from getting the \"\"lifetime value\"\" (as defined by the OP) of principal plus interest over the original life of the bond. This happens in a \"\"flight to quality\"\" situation, where people are willing to take a (small) capital loss on Treasuries in order to prevent a large possible loss from bank failures like those that took place in 2008.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd460a8da0e084553e5cbf9e9a7d4cf0", "text": "\"Repurchase agreements are a way of financing a security position. You have a collateralized loan where you give your security in exchange for cash. Let's say you have a 10 year Treasury note paying 3.5% while the 1-week repurchase rate is 0.5%. You loan the security to someone with a promise to repurchase it from them some time in the future. You collect the 3.5% coupon and you pay the 0.5% interest. Clearly it makes no sense for someone to collect interest on money and also collect coupon payments. And for the counter-party it makes no sense to be not getting coupon payments and also to be paying interest. This how one website explains the process: During the transaction, any coupon payments that come due belong to the legal owner, the \"\"borrower.\"\" However, when this happens, a cash amount equal to the coupon is paid to the original owner, this is called \"\"manufactured payment.\"\" In order to avoid the tax payment on the coupon, some institutions will repo the security to a tax exempt entity and receive the manufactured payment and avoid the tax (\"\"coupon washing\"\") I find this unequivocal description to be the clearest During the life of the transaction the market risk and the credit risk of the collateral remain with the seller. (Because he has agreed to repurchase the asset for an agreed sum of money at maturity). Provided the trade is correctly documented if the collateral has a coupon payment during the life of the repo the buyer is obliged to pay this to the seller.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18b343396f408c52eeb072cc176ecc75", "text": "You cannot do a 1031 exchange with stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or ETFs. There really isn't much difference between an ETF and its equivalent index mutual fund. Both will have minimal capital gains distributions. I would not recommend selling an index mutual fund and taking a short-term capital gain just to buy the equivalent ETF.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
de8c0bca1956ffe18266c6336f577e77	How to find out if I have a savings account already?	[ { "docid": "d95726ea8f3649d243bd5cb7f37843d9", "text": "If you know what bank your parents used, call them and ask. (Or you might have to go there and show id). Chances are if such an account exists, it would be at the same bank. You can also search for unclaimed property. Here's the information link for Florida.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb65fbcda1058e07dad52530007dd1f5", "text": "If you're in the UK, there's a free service here that lets you trace lost bank accounts. If you're in a different country, try Googling to see if that country has a similar service.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "22f0bf466653652cd2727314a799604c", "text": "Very little, as you expected. The CD locks the rate in, meaning you get the rate for sure. The savings account can change any day, so it could fall below the CD's rate. Chances are small, obviously, but it is theoretically possible. If you pay attention, if this happens, you could simply moving it to a CD then (if it is still offered). People with little understanding that want 'security' might be suckered into buying a CD; or there could be versions offered where all the interest comes on the last day (so you delay taxes).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de221977a5faed5782a2a51442850873", "text": "Banks work pretty hard to make themselves a big part of your life with bill pay, auto-deposit, loans and other services. You need to carefully unwind each one and be on the lookout for fees. If you close a savings account, will your checking account suddenly have fees? If you stop auto deposit, will there suddenly be a fee? Do you have a business that deposits money? A Google Ad sense account? PayPal or the equivalent? These all might be tied to your bank accounts. Wait a couple of months, leaving enough cash in the old back to prevent fees if possible. If two months go by and there isn't any activity on the account, you can probably close it. After you are sure all the written checks have cleared, go to the back and get a counter check for the balance of the account. You could alternately just write yourself one more check for the remaining balance and call the bank to close the account. You could electronically transfer the funds if you wanted too. HOWEVER, it is important to be careful of the timing, the last thing you want to do is write a check or transfer the money after the account is closed. (per Dilip Sarwate) If you do the check and phone call thing, make sure you do it in a short enough period of time that you don't incur a fee. Having and closing regular bank accounts won't have any tax implications in the US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99d140993e72032226919ac7ef175059", "text": "A checking account is one that permits the account holder to write demand drafts (checks), which can be given to other people as payment and processed by the banks to transfer those funds. (Think of a check as a non-electronic equivalent of a debit card transaction, if that makes more sense to you.) Outside of the ability to write checks, and the slightly lower interest rate usually offered to trade off against that convenience, there really is no significant difference between savings and checking accounts. The software needs to be designed to handle checking accounts if it's to be sold in the US, since many of us do still use checks for some transactions. Adding support for other currencies doesn't change that. If you don't need the ability to track which checks have or haven't been fully processed, I'd suggest that you either simply ignore the checking account feature, or use this category separation in whatever manner makes sense for the way you want to manage your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24bb18e4837526c4fedf26ad190601c7", "text": "Yup, if he/she is talking about a broker/dealer, but if he's talking to an RIA and is trying to find out who the custodian is then he won't have a statement yet. I don't think he has opened the account yet, but I'm not sure and could be totally misunderstanding the question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce033f385da61f67b0c492443451b1d", "text": "\"It's easy for me to look at an IRA, no deposits or withdrawal in a year, and compare the return to some index. Once you start adding transactions, not so easy. Here's a method that answers your goal as closely as I can offer: SPY goes back to 1993. It's the most quoted EFT that replicates the S&P 500, and you specifically asked to compare how the investment would have gone if you were in such a fund. This is an important distinction, as I don't have to adjust for its .09% expense, as you would have been subject to it in this fund. Simply go to Yahoo, and start with the historical prices. Easy to do this on a spreadsheet. I'll assume you can find all your purchases inc dates & dollars invested. Look these up and treat those dollars as purchases of SPY. Once the list is done, go back and look up the dividends, issues quarterly, and on the dividend date, add the shares it would purchase based on that day's price. Of course, any withdrawals get accounted for the same way, take out the number of SPY shares it would have bought. Remember to include the commission on SPY, whatever your broker charges. If I've missed something, I'm sure we'll see someone point that out, I'd be happy to edit that in, to make this wiki-worthy. Edit - due to the nature of comments and the inability to edit, I'm adding this here. Perhaps I'm reading the question too pedantically, perhaps not. I'm reading it as \"\"if instead of doing whatever I did, I invested in an S&P index fund, how would I have performed?\"\" To measure one's return against a benchmark, the mechanics of the benchmarks calculation are not needed. In a comment I offer an example - if there were an ETF based on some type of black-box investing for which the investments were not disclosed at all, only day's end pricing, my answer above still applies exactly. The validity of such comparisons is a different question, but the fact that the formulation of the EFT doesn't come into play remains. In my comment below which I removed I hypothesized an ETF name, not intending it to come off as sarcastic. For the record, if one wishes to start JoesETF, I'm ok with it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c019875f4ddc93cc1e038484327efc3", "text": "Does anyone have any good resources for starting up learning about savings, finances, etc? I'm 20 years old and want to begin really saving consistently and learning about 401Ks, IRAs, savings accounts, how to grow your money safely and slowly, etc. I'm mainly looking for a website or application that will help me budget and organize things. A phone app would be nice. And any subreddit where I could learn about these things would be extremely helpful too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f06df2f3b49d7933af9b328f77400e7", "text": "\"There are a lot of good answers, but I will share my experience. First, a savings account needs to be for savings. If your in the US you have \"\"Regulation D\"\" to deal with and that will bite you on the rear if you go over those limits. Specially easy to do if your purchasing from a savings account. Next having an \"\"Income\"\" account and a \"\"Spending\"\" account can be a very good tool to build a nest egg. So for example you get $1500 into your income account and then move $1000 to your spending account then budget based on that $1000. This is an amazing thing to do, so long as you have the discipline to never transfer that extra $500, and pretend your broke when you run out of the $1000. That being said there is no reason that you can't do that in one account. It's all preference. My wife and I use YNAB (an envelope budgeting system) to do just that. We don't need the separate accounts. We are no more likely to \"\"not spend\"\" in one account then we are to \"\"not spend\"\" in two accounts. It's all just self discipline and what you need to do. This does lead to the situation we call YNAB broke. It's when we have to start choosing between \"\"going hungry\"\" or getting that new DVD, even though our bank account has $5,000 in it. It's even harder when you choose \"\"go hungry\"\" and have to follow through with it, even though you have enough to buy a used car in your bank account. But rather it's \"\"YNAB broke\"\" or your spending account is empty and your income account it full, the result is the same. It's up to \"\"you\"\" to have the self discipline not to spend. Rather that's in one account or two makes little difference.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f7b26903e290667ad2ae8a4e56cca98", "text": "You will get periodic statements from the bank telling you about interest paid and your current balance. You should be fine unless you plan on becoming lost yourself. If you're worried about losing your mind, back it up somewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1106f53035aa74ff20d51f8c9d233ccc", "text": "\"No, the best you can do is (probably) determine the bank, from the sort code. using an online checker such as this one from the UK payments industry trade association. Revealing the name of an account holder is something the bank would typically require a warrant for, I'd expect, or whatever is covered in the account T&Cs under \"\"we provide all lawfully required assistance to the authorities\"\" Switching to what I suspect is your underlying problem - if this is a dispute that's arisen at the end of your tenancy, relating to the return of the deposit, then there are plenty of people to help you, for free. Use those rather than attempting your own detective work. Start with the UK government How to Rent guide, which includes links on to Shelter's pages about deposits. The CAB has lots of good info here too. Note that if your landlord didn't put your deposit in a deposit protection scheme, then as a professional landlord they could be penalised four times (I think) the deposit amount by a court, so stick to your guns on this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d797e0c5aeb688f536cd46d2b3308dd", "text": "\"Here's a hack for getting the \"\"free\"\" checking that requires direct deposit. Some effort to set up, but once everything is in place, it's all autopilot. (If your transfer into savings is higher than your transfer out of savings, you'll build up a nice little stash over time.) I don't know if there are deposit amounts or frequencies that you must have to qualify for the free account, if these are public or secret, or if this works everywhere. If anyone else has experience using this kind of hack, please leave a comment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5bbfa9b7b8ea9c8f0e19bce5c9d5f7", "text": "What can I do to make sure it won't happen? Who is the right person to report this to? (apparently, the police can't make sure that it won't be used for identity theft) You want to contact any one of the credit bureaus and put a fraud alert on your account. Once you contact one, they automatically contact the other bureaus for you. As part of this, they should send you a credit report. Review it carefully and note any items that are not yours. You'll then need to dispute any items that are a result of this identity theft. You may be required to file a police report regarding the stolen identity, but if you filed one for your stolen wallet, that may be sufficient. If the person who stole your wallet wants to steal your identity, it may be months before it shows up on your credit report. Make it a practice to regularly check your credit reports. How do I check at any given time whether my identity was stolen? Unfortunately, there is no easy way to check if your identity was stolen. The most common way is to check your credit report, but that only checks things that are reported to the credit reporting bureaus. If they use your information to start an account with a utility company at a rental house that typically won't go on your credit report until they are substantially delinquent. If they use your information to check into a hospital, that information typically won't show up on your credit report until the hospital sends the bill to collections. I've had a case where the identity theft happened at Chase, but was never reported on my credit. So my credit report was clear, but Chase disallowed me from banking with them because the identity thief had delinquent accounts with Chase that for whatever reason were not reported to the bureaus. How likely is it that it will be used in any form of identity theft? My gut feeling is that someone who snatches a wallet and immediately runs up the credit cards isn't looking to steal identities, but rather for a quick score. I don't know if there are statistics that back up my hunch.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2762d545460a22c939b7c8db3bd238a", "text": "\"Uh, have you tried google docs? Start off simple. Other than that, for the moment I use GNUCash. Some day I might try to write my own, but for now it works well enough. I have a number of scheduled transactions in GNUCash, and it records them days in advance. You talk about \"\"I should have how much money\"\", but GNUCash offers a slightly better format: Future Minimum Balance. If you want to know whether you can spend money in an account without triggering a chain reaction, that's the number you want. Being web-based so that it can be accessed from any OS. GNUCash is cross platform, with Windows, OSX and Linux clients. It also supports mysql/postgres database backends, so while it's not \"\"Web based\"\", you can keep your data \"\"in the cloud\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cccac97e25661617c9556596aa59e69", "text": "\"With a \"\"normal\"\" CD you can't, but some banks do seem to offer CDs where you can. For instance the \"\"variable-rate CD\"\" at USAA allows ongoing deposits. I also found a United Bank \"\"saver CD\"\" which requires you to set up automatic monthly deposits. You would have to check each individual bank's CD offerings to see if they have such a product. However, if you make ongoing deposits to it, a CD becomes less distinguishable from a savings account. Even if a given bank does offer a \"\"depositable\"\" CD, you might conceivably be able to find a higher rate on a plain savings account at another bank (especially an online bank offering high savings account rates). For instance, the USAA CD I mentioned above has an APY of 0.46%, but the high yield savings accounts on this NerdWallet list have higher APYs than that. So even if you can find the kind of CD you describe, it might be better to just use a savings account anyway.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ee3149b12c0eb37a8beb933962a0205", "text": "I recently made the switch to keeping track of my finance (Because I found an app that does almost everything for me). Before, my situation was fairly simple: I was unable to come up with a clear picture of how much I was spending vs saving (altho I had a rough idea). Now I here is what it changes: What I can do now: Is it useful ? Since I don't actually need to save more than I do (I am already saving 60-75% of my income), 1) isn't important. Since I don't have any visibility on my personal situation within a few years, 2) and 3) are not important. Conclusion: Since I don't actually spend any time building theses informations I am happy to use this app. It's kind of fun. If I did'nt had that tool... It would be a waste of time for me. Depends on your situation ? Nb: the app is Moneytree. Works only in Japan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f47bdeb2d0972bb69521a13551d181af", "text": "\"You don't state where you are, so any answers to this will by necessity be very general in nature. How many bank accounts should I have and what kinds You should have one transaction account and one savings account. You can get by with just a single transaction account, but I really don't recommend that. These are referred to with different names in different jurisdictions, but the basic idea is that you have one account where money is going in and out (the transaction account), and one where money goes in and stays (the savings account). You can then later on, as you discover various needs, build on top of that basic foundation. For example, I have separate accounts for each source of money that comes into my personal finances, which makes things much easier when I sit down to fill out the tax forms up to almost a year and a half later, but also adds a bit of complexity. For me, that simplicity at tax time is worth the additional complexity; for someone just starting out, it might not be. (And of course, it is completely unnecessary if you have only one source of taxable income and no other specific reason to separate income streams.) how much (percentage-wise) of my income should I put into each one? With a single transaction account, your entire income will be going into that account. Having a single account to pay money into will also make life easier for your employer. You will then have to work out a budget that says how much you plan to spend on food, shelter, savings, and so on. how do I portion them out into budgets and savings? If you have no idea where to start, but have an appropriate financial history (as opposed to just now moving into a household of your own), bring out some old account statements and categorize each line item in a way that makes sense to you. Don't be too specific; four or five categories will probably be plenty. These are categories like \"\"living expenses\"\" (rent, electricity, utilities, ...), \"\"food and eating out\"\" (everything you put in your mouth), \"\"savings\"\" (don't forget to subtract what you take out of savings), and so on. This will be your initial budget. If you have no financial history, you are probably quite young and just moving out from living with your parents. Ask them how much might be reasonable in your area to spend on basic food, a place to live, and so on. Use those numbers as a starting point for a budget of your own, but don't take them as absolute truths. Always have a \"\"miscellaneous expenses\"\" or \"\"other\"\" line in your budget. There will always be expenses that you didn't plan for, and/or which don't neatly fall into any other category. Allocate a reasonable sum of money to this category. This should be where you take money from during a normal month when you overshoot in some budget category; your savings should be a last resort, not something you tap into on a regular basis. (If you find yourself needing to tap into your savings on a regular basis, adjust your budget accordingly.) Figure out based on your projected expenses and income how much you can reasonably set aside and not touch. It's impossible for us to say exactly how much this will be. Some people have trouble setting aside 5% of their income on a regular basis without touching it; others easily manage to save over 50% of their income. Don't worry if this turns out a small amount at first. Get in touch with your bank and set up an automatic transfer from your transaction account to the savings account, set to recur each and every time you get paid (you may want to allow a day or two of margin to ensure that the money has arrived in your account before it gets taken out), of the amount you determined that you can save on a regular basis. Then, try to forget that this money ever makes it into your finances. This is often referred to as the \"\"pay yourself first\"\" principle. You won't hit your budget exactly every month. Nobody does. In fact, it's more likely that no month will have you hit the budget exactly. Try to stay under your budgeted expenses, and when you get your next pay, unless you have a large bill coming up soon, transfer whatever remains into your savings account. Spend some time at the end of each month looking back at how well you managed to match your budget, and make any necessary adjustments. If you do this regularly, it won't take very long, and it will greatly increase the value of the budget you have made. Should I use credit cards for spending to reap benefits? Only if you would have made those purchases anyway, and have the money on hand to pay the bill in full when it comes due. Using credit cards to pay for things is a great convenience in many cases. Using credit cards to pay for things that you couldn't pay for using cash instead, is a recipe for financial disaster. People have also mentioned investment accounts, brokerage accounts, etc. This is good to have in mind, but in my opinion, the exact \"\"savings vehicle\"\" (type of place where you put the money) is a lot less important than getting into the habit of saving regularly and not touching that money. That is why I recommend just a savings account: if you miscalculate, forgot a large bill coming up, or for any other (good!) reason need access to the money, it won't be at a time when the investment has dropped 15% in value and you face a large penalty for withdrawing from your retirement savings. Once you have a good understanding of how much you are able to save reliably, you can divert a portion of that into other savings vehicles, including retirement savings. In fact, at that point, you probably should. Also, I suggest making a list of every single bill you pay regularly, its amount, when you paid it last time, and when you expect the next one to be due. Some bills are easy to predict (\"\"$234 rent is due the 1st of every month\"\"), and some are more difficult (\"\"the electricity bill is due on the 15th of the month after I use the electricity, but the amount due varies greatly from month to month\"\"). This isn't to know exactly how much you will have to pay, but to ensure that you aren't surprised by a bill that you didn't expect.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f613f5577cb249eb9e8cd39ec3520410	What are some good software packages for Technical Analysis?	[ { "docid": "8be84e4133969ba6462f5fa6309b578b", "text": "About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1d82d63b3d880c95aec153bdfbca001c", "text": "There are several paths of study you could undertake. If you want to learn the fundamentals of the stock market and become a financial analyst, then finance, economics, and accounting (yes, accounting) are all good to study either on your own or in an institution. Furthermore, if you want to study a specific industry, it can't hurt to know a fair amount of the science behind that particular industry. For example, if you want to understand the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries, knowledge of clinical trials, the FDA's approval process (in the US, at least), off-label uses for drugs, genetic engineering, etc. are all good to know. You don't have to become an expert, but having a firm grasp on the science is extremely useful when evaluating a company's prospects. If you're interested in becoming an algorithmic trader or a quant, then physics, certain fields of engineering, signals processing, applied math, computer science, or econometrics will get you much farther than a standard finance or accounting degree. Most people can learn the basics of finance; not everyone can learn advanced mathematics. A lot of the above applies to learning about the forex market as well. Economics is certainly helpful, especially central bank policy, but since the forex market is so massive and liquid, many mathematical tools are necessary because algorithms play a key role as well. Per littleadv's suggestion, an MBA with a concentration in finance may be an option for someone who already has a degree. Also, an MSF (Master of Science in Finance) or a degree in financial engineering (called an MFE, or ORFE, for Operations Research and Financial Engineering) are other, potentially better options for someone pursuing a more technical career. A high-octane trading firm may not care that you've taken marketing and management classes; they want to hire someone who can understand complex algorithms and design and implement new ones quickly. Some MSF programs are pre-experience programs, which means that in exchange for taking more time to complete, they don't expect you to have significant work experience in the financial industry. An MBA might require such experience, however.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419ccafaa188ccb2a84201f32683508e", "text": "Algo traders/quants/market backtesters/coders/et al. I am looking to backtest basic things like the correlation of P/E, EV/EBITDA, etc. to market performance. I know a little R and Python. What is the easiest way to learn to backtest this sort of stuff? I want to eventually get into algo trading sort of stuff. I'd greatly appreciate it!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7686f9cc57517b629e5b205415287262", "text": "Depends on what you are doing, in energy trading it is all about R and SQL, I still use Python for scraping and as a general scripting language though. In my opinion if you know how to program in one language you can likely pick up a different language without too much trouble, at least that has been my experience. So for entry level just showing that you can program in anything might be enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e54f391924671d1e00e469749b7206a", "text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ad7c351cacf62d86d12f2a96d703e40", "text": "Just got back from the office, so I can better answer it now. The trader uses the Metatrader platform, which is programmed with a language based off C++. I'm working with him to update some algos now. His strategies running on ToS are more or less proof-of-concept that he streams right now as he sources investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35ecc70f06b1d857067088599dea1266", "text": "\"Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from \"\"confirmation bias\"\" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and \"\"miss\"\" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0790763ce1214e0a9fa81798f3e2e128", "text": "I've used BigCharts (now owned by MarketWatch.com) for a while and really like them. Their tools to annotate charts are great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9764ba3afd9210806de741e49eaf845a", "text": "\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days\|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a69f6feef70bb807a609ce01b474c06", "text": "\"As a former computer engineer turned Finance guy, I'll attest that Matlab (or even R) are immensely better analytic tools than Excel/VBA. Excel and VBA are \"\"good enough\"\" if all you're going to do is cookie-cutter DCF analysis (...lame), but if you want to do any advanced monte carlo simulations or something that requires more than a few dozen iterations, you're going to need a sturdy mathematical programming language. Excel is nothing but a kiddie toy compared to those. Additionally, everyone and their dog knows Excel and VBA, adding Matlab or R to your resume definitely boosts your appeal to employers. I prefer Matlab, but R is free and open-source so it's much more widely available. They both have similar syntax.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8", "text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50532dba417e7878dd4042a85918e8ac", "text": "Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc8484f24d0c259e02cb1c1a590e2d52", "text": "\"A lot of investors prefer to start jumping into tools and figuring out from there, but I've always said that you should learn the theory before you go around applying it, so you can understand its shortcomings. A great starting point is Investopedia's Introduction to Technical Analysis. There you can read about the \"\"idea\"\" of technical analysis, how it compares to other strategies, what some of the big ideas are, and quite a bit about various chart patterns (cup and handle, flags, pennants, triangles, head & shoulders, etc). You'll also cover ideas like moving averages and trendlines. After that, Charting and Technical Analysis by Fred McAllen should be your next stop. The material in the book overlaps with what you've read on Investopedia, but McAllen's book is great for learning from examples and seeing the concepts applied in action. The book is for new comers and does a good job explaining how to utilize all these charts and patterns, and after finishing it, you should be ready to invest on your own. If you make it this far, feel free to jump into Fidelity's tools now and start applying what you've learned. You always want to make the connection between theory and practice, so start figuring out how you can use your new knowledge to generate good returns. Eventually, you should read the excellent reference text Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets by John Murphy. This book is like a toolbox - Murphy covers almost all the major techniques of technical analysts and helps you intuitively understand the reasoning behind them. I'd like to quote a part of a review here to show my point: What I like about Mr. Murphy is his way of showing and proving a point. Let me digress here to show you what I mean: Say you had a daughter and wanted to show her how to figure out the area of an Isosceles triangle. Well, you could tell her to memorize that it is base*height/2. Or if you really wanted her to learn it thoroughly you can show her how to draw a parallel line to the height, then join the ends to make a nice rectangle. Then to compute the area of a rectangle just multiply the two sides, one being the height, the other being half the base. She will then \"\"derive\"\" this and \"\"understand\"\" how they got the formula. You see, then she can compute the area under a hexagon or a tetrahedron or any complex object. Well, Mr. Murphy will show us the same way and \"\"derive\"\" for us concepts such as how a resistance line later becomes a support line! The reson for this is so amusing that after one reads about it we just go \"\"wow...\"\"\"\" Now I understand why this occurs\"\". Murphy's book is not about strategy or which tools to use. He takes an objective approach to describing the basics about various tools and techniques, and leaves it up to the reader to decide which tools to apply and when. That's why it's 576 pages and a great reference whenever you're working. If you make it through and understand Murphy, then you'll be golden. Again, understand the theory first, but make sure to see how it's applied as well - otherwise you're just reading without any practical knowledge. To quote Richard Feynman: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Personally, I think technical analysis is all BS and a waste of time, and most of the top investors would agree, but at the end of the day, ignore everyone and stick to what works for you. Best of luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aa23b21543de181fdf441fec5422437", "text": "Nah most of what the quants do is v. mathematics / theory heavy and not prog / cs heavy. It really depends whether you want a markets / stats focus or a programming focus. Programming focus = CS style, development, implementing algo.s Markets focus (where the $ is) = refining algos and working with devs, stats/research, more physics/maths-style work with a lot more scripting and empirical approaches to problem solving Take it from someone in industry... you'll be fine just go out and get a job, they'll train you, start reading the FT for some background on markets and read up on basic financials e.g. what stock actually is, how it's prices, how markets actually function (structurally), how people price swaps and bonds, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94876d4c3ead19f5407541421c9d4e19", "text": "That will depend on what area of finance you're interested in. For some sectors you shouldn't focus on programming as a skill to learn outside the classroom (for example CRE, iBanking). Personally I think VBA, Python and R would be great places to start (and useful in sectors such as risk management, trading and possibly even the insurance industry). Just pick one, the first one you learn will take the longest after that you'll realize learning more isn't that hard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7df875fca034439703105832281a3772", "text": "Is this legal? If the purpose of the sale at that price is to defraud somebody else, you could have a legal issue. For example if the purpose was to make yourself appear poorer to make you eligible for government aid; Or to increase your chances of getting a college grant; or to not have to pay money to your spouse as part of a divorce settlement; or if there is an unwritten part of the transaction for the sibling to sell the house back to in a few years when you no longer need to appear poor. The answer by @littleadv covers the tax complications. I do have one additional point. The sale can't be a short sale. The bank will never approve. The short sale can only be approved when the bank is convinced that there are no viable purchasers at a level to get all their money back. Your sibling is not an arms length transaction.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1af0fa5418b9ade6cbd27cb5f57a3393	Can a stock exchange company actually go bust?	[ { "docid": "87620c0886760b6e8eb40fe5c0e8d742", "text": "A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7d9132f205e3cc966b4f2f0534c76c4", "text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4ee6ab7ae416d23d3589af9ad5f809e7", "text": "Typically if the company is so out of whack that it's liquidating, it won't have assets to even cover all its debts never mind enough to return anything back to owners. If there was any shot of the company continuing as an ongoing concern it would file an 11 and reorganize.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5612dcb81d25c948a71027db30822c3b", "text": "\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b58d203013c024c3657a62f4153e2b6", "text": "In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ada05587e681b61fb3df92c0c01a033", "text": "If you've got shares in a company that's filed for U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that sucks, it really does. I've been there before and you may lose your entire investment. If there's still a market for your shares and you can sell them, you may want to just accept the loss and get out with what you can. However, shares of bankrupt companies are often delisted once bankrupt, since the company no longer meets minimum exchange listing requirements. If you're stuck holding shares with no market, you could lose everything – but that's not always the case: Chapter 11 isn't total and final bankruptcy where the company ceases to exist after liquidation of its assets to pay off its debts. Rather, Chapter 11 is a section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permits a company to attempt to reorganize (or renegotiate) its debt obligations. During Chapter 11 reorganization, a company can negotiate with its creditors for a better arrangement. They typically need to demonstrate to creditors that without the burden of the heavy debt, they could achieve profitability. Such reorganization often involves creditors taking complete or majority ownership of the company when it emerges from Chapter 11 through a debt-for-equity swap. That's why you, as an investor before the bankruptcy, are very likely to get nothing or just pennies on the dollar. Any equity you may be left holding will be considerably diluted in value. It's rare that shareholders before a Chapter 11 bankruptcy still retain any equity after the company emerges from Chapter 11, but it is possible. But it varies from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and it can be complex as montyloree pointed out. Investopedia has a great article: An Overview of Corporate Bankruptcy. Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last. In this article, we'll explain what happens when a public company files for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws and how it affects investors. [...] How It Affects Investors [...] When your company goes bankrupt, there is a very good chance you will not get back the full value of your investment. In fact, there is a chance you won't get anything back. [...] Wikipedia has a good article on Chapter 11 bankruptcy at Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a56976424c16c7b52f1a6b079e405eac", "text": "Randomly selected stocks would probably become worthless at a similar rate of all businesses going out of business do. I'm not sure why you'd randomly select a stock though. Stocks in the S&P500 (or other similar index), or large-cap stocks probably become worthless at a much lower rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72531ea689a54ad31fcdca474bd1289f", "text": "Different stakeholders have different views of 'failure'. Maybe from Air Berlin's point of view it was a failure, but technically speaking it is not really possible to 'fail'. As long as all shares were purchased, which is a virtual guarantee since the investment banks who underwrite the IPO by and large must do to some extent, it will always be 'successful'. A decrease in value of shares immediately after IPO means that the investment bank who did the IPO for Air Berlin didn't match its IPO price with market expectations, causing shorts on the stock, and thus a decline. No failure per se.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "067c2877b26bf466143a7b71d7303236", "text": "Yes, but the fact is they probably don't have the cash to pay them right now. I know they just did a cash raise by offering existing shareholders rights to purchase more shares and then additionally issuing new shares. this is always a sign of a weak cash positions, although I'm not quite sure where their cash position is post-rights offering. One of the other issues was the US DOJ fined DB wayyyy more than they should have relative to what they fined US banks for the MBS crisis. Basically US Banks were fined fairly, but DB wasn't because they are foreign and the DOJ likes using foreign companies as piggy-banks...obviously this comes back to hurt the US as now Europeans are more than happy to fine US tech companies up the yin-yang. An eye for an eye...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f4ba7667d4bfca0520dcba717ee5f09", "text": "The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5e3dade8a05f62c1c0225500bd5eb9b", "text": "This would be governed by bankruptcy law... there is no reason a healthy company would take such action. This would be a long drawn process generally amongst debtor the taxes have higher claim, then Sunday debtors (payable), then bank loans... This is followed by loan raised by company deposits then debentures... even among share holders there can be special shares... More often most shares are equal and the balance is distributed to all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf82fdf941800ef384dc15c5f5ba0df1", "text": "I'm surprised that [Theranos](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/theranos-board-response-deposition-court-documents) isn't at or near the top. It went from $9 billion valuation to more or less worthless, all based on technological claims that never lived up to their claims, and with an all-star Board of Advisors. It's pretty much the definition of a hype bubble with an epic collapse. I suppose it's not as immediate a catastrophic failure as some of the ones on the list, but the size of the failure and collapse dwarfs most of them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7da0708a8b135ad64f3f50ce0300ce98", "text": "When you buy shares, you are literally buying a share of the company. You become a part-owner of it. Companies are not required to pay dividends in any given year. It's up to them to decide each year how much to pay out. The value of the shares goes up and down depending on how much the markets consider the company is worth. If the company is successful, the price of the shares goes up. If it's unsuccessful, the price goes down. You have no control over that. If the company fails completely and goes bankrupt, then the shares are worthless. Dilution is where the company decides to sell more shares. If they are being sold at market value, then you haven't really lost anything. But if they are sold below cost (perhaps as an incentive to certain staff), then the value of the company per share is now less. So your shares may be worth a bit less than they were. You would get to vote at the AGM on such schemes. But unless you own a significant proportion of the shares in the company, your vote will probably make no difference. In practice, you can't protect yourself. Buying shares is a gamble. All you can do is decide what to gamble on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613", "text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c03fd2a93ac59c369f93c5f51ae09587", "text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c47d7a2b0d4192aa850717952892a9a", "text": "I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a087862ebd93bef3b6d75993e9ced7e4", "text": "As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ebe2d9aa8c98b0ffa64cf1ed82c1d931	Can you sell on the settlement date?	[ { "docid": "ef9f5769e5d4a0b6e6fd4db33220fe98", "text": "Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "15052046367c653d0b7d6798a687236f", "text": "No. You can sell anytime. I am in pedantic mode, sorry, the way the question is worded implies that you can sell only if it rises. You are welcome to sell at a loss, too. Yes. The fund will not issue a dividend with every dividend it receives. It's more typical that they issue dividends quarterly. So the shares will increase by the amount of the undistributed dividends and on the ex-div date, drop by that amount. The remaining value goes up and down, of course, I am speaking only of the extra value created by the retained dividends.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ad39f83aacc8997b0def6e760c28763", "text": "You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48145a232fa675d357bd2ef09fe54701", "text": "This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b106aa78f608ac6f263c770c8b0d13f0", "text": "There are two 'dates' relevant to your question: Ex-Dividend and Record. To find out these dates for a specific security visit Dividend.Com. You have to purchase the security prior to the Ex-Dividend date, hold it at least until the Record Date. After the Record Date you can sell the security and still receive the dividend for that quarter. ---- edit - - - - I was wrong. If you sell the security after the Ex-div date but before the date of record you still get the dividend. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/110802.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abf23d001d2d137b8fb1603b8748935e", "text": "I'm a bit out of my element here, but my guess is the right way to think about this is: knowing what you do now about the underlying company (NZT), pretend they had never offered ADR shares. Would you buy their foreign listed shares today? Another way of looking at it would be: would you know how to sell the foreign-listed shares today if you had to do so in an emergency? If not, I'd also push gently in the direction of selling sooner than later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "876b598f5ea78adf444348f7f7188616", "text": "You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d9157558f778c26156143f17b8efa30", "text": "Yes, but it must be remembered that these conditions only last for instants, and that's why only HFTs can take advantage of this. During 2/28/14's selloff from the invasion of Ukraine, many times, there were moments where there was overwhelming liquidity on the bid relative to the ask, but the price continued to drop.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8df64456a4b0518420c880e3220498c9", "text": "quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cce3a29cfc98b1f105ad4f548111501d", "text": "\"You answered your own question \"\"whether someone buys is a different thing\"\". You can ask any price that you want. (Or given an electronic brokerage, you can enter the highest value that the system was designed to accept.) The market (demand) will determine whether anyone will buy at the price you are asking. A better strategy if you want to make an unreasonable amount of money is to put in a buy order at an unreasonably low price and hope a glitch causes a flash crash and allows you to purchase at that price. There may be rules that unravel your purchase after the fact, but it has a better chance of succeeding than trying to sell at an unreasonably high price.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ac96c93bd48428d27dd972865d7dd0a", "text": "It turns out that in this special case for New York, they have a law that says that if you are changing your filing status from resident to nonresident, you must use the accrual method for calculating capital gains. So in this case, the date on the papers is the important one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ed5fda8c033d8433225d658445dd9b8", "text": "\"Their is no arbitrage opportunity with \"\"buying dividends.\"\" You're buying a taxable event. This is a largely misunderstood topic. The stock always drops by the amount if the dividend on the ex date. The stock opens that day trading \"\"ex\"\" (excluding) the dividend. It then pays out later based in the shareholders on record. There is a lot of talk about price movement and value here. That can happen but it's from trading not from the dividend per se. Yes sometimes you do see a stock pop the day prior to ex date because people are buying the stock for the dividend but the trading aspect of a stock is determined by supply and demand from people trading the stock. The dividends are paid out from the owners equity section of the balance sheet. This is a return of equity to shareholders. The idea is to give owners of the company some of their investment back (from when they bought the stock) without having the owners sell the shares of the company. After all if it's a good company you want to keep holding it so it will appreciate. Another similar way to think of it is like a bonds interest payment. People sometimes forget when trading that these are actual companies meant to be invested in. Your buying an ownership in the company with your cash. It really makes no difference to buy the dividend or not, all other things constant. Though market activity can add or lose value from trading as normal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9f1667c1c5842672022e480c86b017a", "text": "Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7bb7d45b47d80bb49f11fcf8f92205c", "text": "No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13264e24e496419687e087bd348bef42", "text": "I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57d386c5868e6e2635ebb8abe0f1246c", "text": "The ex-dividend date, prevents this, but people are still able to do this and this is an investment strategy. There are some illiquid and immature markets where prices don't adjust. In the options market people are able to find mispriced deep in the money calls to take advantage of the ex-dividend date. It is called dividend capture using covered calls.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
63ff1d338fc6b57270381bbf0c3f634d	Recovering over-contribution to Social Security between two employers?	[ { "docid": "036df9f2ee4e906c487707ce19503ea2", "text": "This is a common occurrence when somebody has multiple jobs in one year. The employer can't know if you have reached the annual limit. They know to stop when you have hit the maximum for their company, but don't have information on the other jobs. In fact the IRS doesn't let them factor in the other jobs. They have to keep making their payment until you hit the max for their company. When you fill out the 1040 there will be a line that checks that the total social security amount for each person was not over the annual limit. The extra will be refunded when you file your taxes. In the future if this happens again you can adjust your withholding to minimize the overage. For the example given in the question to get the 4K extra sooner, increase the number of allowances on the W-4. You can under withhold federal income tax because you will over withhold social security tax.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ab60ff3d34ff776f877eb92c0f2a2706", "text": "\"This is an unfortunate situation for you. You have zero chance at your question number 1, if someone was going to bend this rule for you it would have happened already. The answer to question number 2 is pursue solution number 3. The overriding issue is that the IRS makes these rules, not the employer/plan sponsor or the administrator. You can't talk the plan administrator in to reimbursing you, their system likely doesn't even have a function to do so. FSA timing issues can be complex and I think that's the root of your issue because when an expense can be incurred (date of service versus date of payment) and when a claim must be filed are different things. It's really common to bend the rules on when a claim is submitted, but not when it was incurred. It's really common for an exiting employee to have 30 days to submit expenses for reimbursement. FSA expenses must always be incurred within the specified plan year, or within your dates of employment if you weren't employed for the entire plan year, this is specified by the IRS. It seems like some wires were crossed when you asked this question. You were asking \"\"can I still incur claims\"\" and they were hearing \"\"how long do I have to submit an expense that has already been incurred.\"\" Some plans allow COBRA continuation on FSA which generally does not make sense. Your contributions to the plan would use after tax dollars but for folks who know they have an eligible expense coming it can make sense to continue via COBRA in retain your eligibility under the plan so you can incur a claim after your employment termination. Regarding number 3. This sort of reimbursement would be outside the plan, no precedent is necessary. You've gotten them to claim it was their mistake, they're going to reimburse you for their mistake, it has nothing to do with the FSA. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81d4c9dde5cf45b2a21452b978de607f", "text": "I'm not unsympathetic, but insurance of what kind? I don't know how he'd have owned a restaurant but failed to pay into the social security system. Was he paying taxes at all? As for the 'why,' there's not enough checks and balances to make sure that nothing is done under the table. I believe 40 quarters of work would have qualified her for a benefit of some kind, but you say she didn't pay in either. Both people didn't pay into the system, either on purpose or by not understanding the need to do so. This is a sad situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83f8ff17f46bd4cef916f5cb2bdae4cf", "text": "Since your comment on @JoeTaxpayer's answer says that you are still under the 2012 contribution limits if the extra money is left in your 401k account, I do not think that there is any problem for you if the money is left in the 401k account. As I understand it, your salary is $X for 2012 of which you contribute some percentage per paycheck to your 401k account. Your contributions would have totaled $Y for 2012 if the glitch of extra money being out into your 401k account had not occurred. In the absence of the glitch, your W-2 form would have reported $X as gross wages, $(X-Y) as taxable wages and $Y as 401k contributions. Since an additional $z has been put into your 401k account, but not deducted from your paycheck, your employer could do one of two things. The extra money could be withdrawn from your 401k account by your employer. If this is done, then your W-2 form will be as described above. The extra money is not withdrawn by your employer. Your W-2 form will still report $(X-Y) as taxable wages, but $(Y+z) as the 401k contribution and $(X+z) as gross wages. Since $(Y+z) is less than the maximum 2012 contribution, everything is fine. In your position, I would very much prefer the latter alternative over the former, not just because there is a larger contribution to the 401k account with no change in tax liability, but also because there is always the possibility that HR/Payroll will screw up the withdrawal of the excess contribution so that it appears as a premature withdrawal by the participant. In this case, the participant not only has to pay income tax on $z but also a 10% excise tax for premature withdrawal, without actually getting even a penny from that $z taken out, which will go right back into the employer's coffers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a38bafeb735f43826f9b6342241c2be", "text": "So to translate that to US English: taking an early retirement in lieu of impending layoffs. If you have a layoff you're saying you have no need for the work and if you replace the workers then they come back to sue you (which seems to be what you're saying, and we have the same concept) but an early retirement is a voluntary exit with a compensation package such that any right to sue is forfeit because it was a consensual exit rather than mandatory. Got it. Thanks. :)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4867627f8a0ac6019c5a4cb6e87e0422", "text": "Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "578c0b40fda66543adc52992342ef09f", "text": "One snag in your plan is that you alone can't undo your HSA contributions because you would also owe FICA taxes on that amount, and those need to be paid by both you and your employer. The only way for that to happen is for your employer to undo your HSA contributions from their point of view so those wages can be entirely taxed with both FICA and regular withholding. How that is accomplished will probably be up to them. It could mean you pulling the money out of the HSA account, and then either giving it back to your employer so they can re-allocate it with a new check, or, if you have enough pay due between now and the end of the year you could keep the money and they can reduce your next paycheck(s) by the total additional taxes due. Note that you should prefer the latter if possible, since this way you would get to keep the $1000 you shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Also, note that when you withdraw the money from your HSA account you need to inform your bank that you are undoing the contributions rather than taking distributions (and likely fill out a form). If you don't inform them they will improperly report to the IRS that you had contributions and an equal amount of distributions, which could muddy the waters with also having an FSA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "621d0c1188e1600851fb94c0d18f0a73", "text": "You'd probably have to sue them to get the money. In most cases those statements have disclaimers all over them telling you about the vesting period and technically that extra money was probably never really in your account. Normally the statements also break out the actual contributions from the employer match part and have a footnote about the vesting policy. Unless the employer was completely incompetent in their management of this account, I am betting they will have documentation of the policy that you supposedly were given. You probably have very slim chances of prevailing on this unless they were very lax in their documentation. I'd say re-check the statements and your employee manually carefully for any mention of vesting. If you don't find it, ask the employer (nicely) where you were notified of this. If they still can't produce any documentation, then sue them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b240c8733992c78e273ab69c01482f22", "text": "\"If she reported the income on the business return, I'd treat this as a \"\"mail audit\"\". Try to get a clear statement from Square confirming what they reported, under which SSN/EIN, for what transactions. Make a copy of that. If at all possible, get them to send a letter to the IRS (copy to you) acknowledging that they reported it under the wrong number. Copy the IRS's letter. Square's letter, and both personal and business 2012 returns. Write a (signed) cover letter explaining what had happened and pointing out the specific line in the business return which corresponded to the disputed amount, so they can see that you did report it properly and did pay taxes on it as business income. End that letter with a request for advice on how to straighten this out. Certified-mail the whole package back to the IRS at whatever address the advisory letter gives. At worst, I'm guessing, they'll tell you to refile both returns for 2012 with that income moved over from the business return to the personal return, which will make everything match their records. But with all of this documentation in one place, they may be able to simply accept that Square misreported it and correct their files. Good luck. The IRS really isn't as unreasonable as people claim; if you can clearly document that you were trying to do the right thing, they try not to penalize folks unnecessarily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f7c899664f92746c2220106a33963f9", "text": "You have several options: If they refuse the second option, and the incident has already happened look on the HSA website for the form and procedure to return a mistaken distribution. I have used the two options with all our medical providers for the last 3 years. Some preferred option1, some preferred option 2, but none refused both. One almost did, but then reconsidered when they realized I was serious. While there is an April 15th deadline to resolve the mistake, I have found that by requesting the provider accept one of the two options the number of mistakes is greatly reduced.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4896f11a944f6d57641a6383c67637c", "text": "This is not your problem and you should not try to fix it. If your employer paid money into someone else's account instead of yours they should ask their bank to reverse it and should pay you your wages while they are waiting for this to be done. No bank will let you do anything about money paid by someone else into an account that is not yours, or give you details of someone else's account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1aa72fb12ef5c071644f31f2a2894ae", "text": "\"The $10,400 is in the question, in two pieces. His employer withheld $8000, and her employer withheld $2400. Thus they paid together $10,400 in income taxes, which are deductible if you itemize deductions and choose income taxes over sales taxes (you can deduct one or the other). There's nothing \"\"standard\"\" about the amount, though it is standard to take the income tax deduction (almost always higher than sales tax).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "136846be59b87b72dad2dbcf273b6dcf", "text": "There's nothing much you can do here, and I don't think you'll succeed in placing blame on the lawyers. In order for SSA to have the tax withheld from your benefits, you need to submit form W-4V. Here are the details on how to get it and what to do with it. This form is voluntarily submitted, i.e.: no-one will ask for it, you have to actively send it out on your own. As to repayment of the LTD benefits - since they were not taxable, there's no change in the taxable income on your behalf. What you got wasn't taxed, so what you gave back - doesn't provide any tax benefit. As to why SSA benefits are taxable and LTD benefits are not - this is because SSA is pre-tax, and LTD premiums were (in your case, apparently) post-tax. However, the LTD benefits management company doesn't care or may be even know about this, and they do everything they can to reduce their own liability to you. If you're entitled to SSA benefits, it reduces their liability, that's why they insisted on your claim with SSA. As to the SSA dragging their feet - they want to reduce their (taxpayers', essentially) liability as well. However, once they decided in your favor, you received what was rightfully yours, including back-pay. SSA benefits are taxable, in the year received. So you got a lump sum - taxable as a lump sum. Sorry, but that's the way it is. This is an example where post-tax LTD premiums don't actually pay off...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "079e81b1d88fb2362033f91c5496c8a7", "text": "Ask for documentation proving the amount they say you were overpaid, and ask for time to review their claim. If it is a large amount that they can prove you owe, and if you were staying, then you could ask for the repayment to be spread over multiple pay checks. This would avoid the situation where you could get a very small check or even a check for zero. Because you are leaving, you could ask for time to reimburse them, but don't count on them agreeing to that deal. The lesson is to save all time cards, especially ones in which your hours are not consistent. Also save all pay stubs for the year. What you should do now is download all the time card and pay info on the website, before you lose access to it. These should be saved on your home machine, or printed and kept at home. Check to see if they made any time card adjustments. Many systems keep track of all changes made by the employee and by management; both before and after the employee signs the time card. If there are change you should be able to ask them to explain the changes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d36d0c9bf5b74b3b2aba95a3a46d601", "text": "There are still ways that the default values on the W4 can lead you to get a refund or owe the IRS. If there was a big delta in your paychecks, it can lead to problems. If you make 260,000 and get 26 paychecks that means each check had a gross of 10,000. Your company will withhold the same amount from each check. But If you earned a big bonus then the smaller regular paychecks may not have been withholding enough. When bonus checks are involved the payroll office has to treat them as irregular pay to be able to make it work out. Some companies don't do this, so you may under or over pay during the year. If you changed companies during the year, this can lead to under or over payment. The lower paying company would not know about the higher rate of pay at the other company. so at one you would under pay, and the other you would over pay. There are also social security issues with more than one employer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc8c9f027bfc2cc21bc6b1d146bfccf", "text": "Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation and it has issued bonds for instance. Amazon have also issued bonds in the past as have Google. One of many reasons companies may issue bonds is to reduce their tax bill. If a company is a multinational it may have foreign earnings that would incur a tax bill if they were transferred to the holding company's jurisdiction. The company can however issue bonds backed by the foreign cash pile. It can then use the bond cash to pay dividends to shareholders. Ratings Agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's exist to rate companies ability to make repayments on debt they issue. Investors can read their reports to help make a determination as to whether to invest in bond issues. Of course investors also need to determine whether they believe the Ratings Agencies assesments.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1bf52c60309c5b70cdda69a4c4b9ed61	What are some pre-tax programs similar to FSA that I can take advantage of?	[ { "docid": "5ebf2ea727f3001493c5793cd350ad4b", "text": "2014 Limit: $2,500 Notes 2014 Limit: $3,300 individual, $6,550 family Notes 2014 Limit: $5,000 Notes 2014 Limit: $2,500 Notes 2014 Limit: $250/month Notes 2014 Limit: $130/month Notes", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4599a364b5a530dbb6877e76d48ebad", "text": "There is a dependent care spending account for child care related expenses. Also Medical and Dental expenses over a certain % of your income maybe deductible on your tax return.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "220d7e9af4c8d0b987a25c906fde365a", "text": "I'm not a huge fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts anyway, so I wouldn't fault you for not contributing even if you weren't likely to develop a disability. Do you have disability insurance? I hope so. If you already have the disease then you may not be able to get it now if you don't have it already because they may not cover existing conditions. If not, try to get it however you can. You may be able to withdraw the money without much problem if you can prove it's a permanent disability. (Information here.) Do you have 401(k) matching from your employer? If that match is vested in a reasonable period of time, then even with the penalties you'll end up ahead. Beyond that (this wasn't part of your question but I'm just trying to help) I'd think about what kind of work you can do after you can't work at your current job. You have the luxury of an early warning, so plan for it. Also, check out National Industries for the Blind. Our Lions Club sells some of the Skilcraft products (brooms) as fundraisers and they're quality products.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae8cfa57ef8ed63fedd0cfc010fa3a0b", "text": "\"The Roth/Traditional decision is complex, but can be broken down into a set of simple rules. Ideally, you want to choose to tax your money at the lowest possible rate. This specifically refers to your marginal rate, the rate you last $100 was taxed or next $100 of income with be taxed. That, in itself, is another issue, answered with questions here discussing marginal rates. My suggestion has been that if you are in the 15% bracket, use Roth. And continue to do so until you hit 25%. At that point, begin to shift to the traditional, pre-tax 401(k) or IRA. (My article The 15% solution, goes into detail on this, although it references the 2013 tax rates. I need to re-edit). If you are already in the 25% bracket, I'd suggest just going pre-tax. Given the ability to convert, it's not as if there are 2 points in time (deposit and withdrawal) but you can decide every year if your situation changes. It's not uncommon to get married, have a baby, buy a house, and find you just dropped back down to 15% marginal rate when you were solidly 25% prior. Let me explain why you should go 100% pretax if already at 25%. A single person hits the top of the 15% bracket (in 2017) at $37,950 taxable. Add the standard deduction and exemption, and you are at $48,350. The tax on this is $5226, less than 10% average, despite the next $100 being taxed at 25%. It would take over $1M to have an account large enough to withdraw $40K/yr. If you blow through that number, you hit 25%, I agree, but why pay 25% now, for sure, to avoid 'maybe' hitting 25% later? You have decades of opportunities for conversion, and even more when the funds are transferred to IRAs if you have a job change. (And the conversion discussion has multiple layers when the IRA is involved) Say you are 'too' successful. You are hitting $2M before age 55. If you retire post-55, you can withdraw from the 401(k) penalty free. But, you have 15 years before you'd start to take SS benefits. 15 years to use conversions, even if pushing into 25%, to reduce the impact of SS taxation. My advice is not a set-and-forget solution. It's an annual evaluation of the plan for the coming year. Further notes on my choice of \"\"15% Solution\"\" - This is the 2017 tax table for singles - I note that median individual income is ~$30K which puts that median single at ~20K taxable. This is where the analysis begins. This earner might have upward mobility, to reach the 25% bracket and begin to save pre-tax. The goal would be to have a mix of pre/post tax money, so that over the course of their life, the 25% bracket was avoided, perhaps completely. In general, my writing tend towards the second highest quintile, the 60-80% slice of the population. The numbers might appear arbitrary, but, in the end, the discussion has to start someplace. The concept I described here is best implemented by the single or couple who is still at 15%, but soon pushing higher than the 15/25 line. This enables them to start by saving in the Roth, and slowly shifting towards pre-tax. The final mix at retirement depends on that timing as well as their opportunities for conversions along the way. Part of my focus on that line is that the differential is greatest in bracket shifts between 15 and 25%. Much of the benefit in the whole IRA/401 discussion is in that shift, depositing at 25%, yet withdrawing at 15%. The 28% couple might wish to avoid the 33% bracket at retirement, but that level of income impacts far fewer people, and fewer still that are either reading these boards or my other writing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d490648aca89a2e8a78e7ba7de7670ef", "text": "Another option if it is available is a Roth 401k. It is similar to a Roth IRA in that you pay taxes up front, but the withdrawals are tax free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4765111f8ea0315f1f03795e2a251eb", "text": "Employer match doesn't incur FICA tax (social security, medicare) for you at all - either current year or when you withdraw. All you have to pay is income tax when you withdraw after retirement age. (Disclaimer - I'm not tax professional but has done my research)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92a1adcf9624d185493c4554d7f83703", "text": "\"The FSA, in contrast to the HSA, is not an \"\"account\"\" that you put money in. FSA stands for \"\"Flexible Spending Arrangement,\"\" not \"\"Account.\"\" Technically, it is a defined-benefit plan. Here is the difference: With an account such as an HSA, you put money into the account, and you get that same money out. You can't take money out unless you first put money in. The FSA doesn't work that way. Instead, you pick an annual amount that your FSA will cover, and work out a monthly fee to pay for it. For example, you might decide on a $1800 FSA, which will cost you $150 per month. However, the $150 you pay each month does not go into an account for you; instead, it goes to your employer, who is managing the plan. Let's say that in January, at the beginning of the plan year, you have a large medical expense of $1000. You've only had $150 taken out of your paycheck so far this year, but you are covered for $1800, so you get reimbursed the full $1000. This is referred to as \"\"uniform coverage\"\", meaning that you get the full $1800 of coverage on day 1 of the year. Now let's say that you leave your job in March. You've only paid $450, and you've received $1000 in benefit. You do not owe your employer the rest of the money; your employer eats this cost. This is the trade-off that the FSA offers over other types of accounts: depending on an employee's circumstances, an employer might make money (use-it-or-lose-it) or might lose money (uniform coverage) on an individual employee. The idea behind the use-it-or-lose-it provision of the FSA is to help the employer pay for the uniform coverage provision. The details behind the FSA (and other types of health plans) are outlined in IRS Publication 969. I'm sure that a secondary reason behind the use-it-or-lose-it provision is that it encourages an employee to keep his FSA plan small, so he can use it all up and not have to lose too much of it at the end of the year. And a smaller FSA contribution means more tax money for the government. To address your point that it shouldn't be this way: I'm personally not a fan of the FSA because of the use-it-or-lose-it provision. But participation is voluntary, for both employers and employees. You proposed an alternative set of rules for the FSA, but you are basically describing an HSA, in which you cannot spend more than you have, and you get to keep whatever is left over. The recent rules changes that allow plans to feature a grace period or a small carryover balance were an attempt to make the FSA a little more attractive/useful, but if you want the ability to keep your money and not have to spend it at all, use an HSA instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "407d5b6f33456c1d2b446b27364e5406", "text": "First, you need to understand the difference in discussing types of investments and types of accounts. Certificate of Deposits (CDs), money market accounts, mutual funds, and stocks are all examples of types of investments. 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, and taxable accounts are all examples of types of accounts. In general, those are separate decisions to make. You can invest in any type of investment inside any type of account. So your question really has two different parts: Tax-advantaged retirement accounts vs. Standard taxable accounts FDIC-insured CDs vs. at-risk investments (such as stock mutual funds) Retirement accounts are special accounts allowed by the federal government that allow you to delay (or, in some cases, completely avoid) paying taxes on your investment. The trade-off for these accounts is that, in general, you cannot access any of the money that you put into these accounts until you get to retirement age without paying a steep penalty. These accounts exist to encourage citizens to save for their own retirement. Examples of retirement accounts include 401(k) and IRAs. Standard taxable accounts have no tax advantages, but no restrictions, either. You can put money in and take money out whenever you like. However, anything that your investment earns is taxable each year. Inside any of these accounts, you can invest in FDIC-insured bank accounts, such as savings accounts or CDs, or you can invest in any number of non-insured investments, including money market accounts, bonds, mutual funds, stocks, precious metals, etc. Something you need to understand about investing in general is that your potential returns are directly related to the amount of risk that you take on. Investing in an insured investment, which is guaranteed by the government to never lose its value, will result in the lowest potential investment returns that you can get. Interest-bearing savings accounts are currently paying less than 1% interest. A CD will get you a slightly higher interest rate in exchange for you agreeing not to withdraw your money for a period of time. However, it takes a long time for your investments to grow with these investments. If you are earning 1%, it takes 72 years for your investment to double. If you are willing to take some risk, you can earn much more with your investments. Bonds are often considered quite safe; with a bond, you loan money to a government or corporation, and they pay you back with interest. The risk comes from the possibility that the government or corporation won't pay you back, so it is important to choose a bond from an entity that you trust. Stocks are shares in for-profit companies. Your potential investment gain is unlimited, but it is risky, as stocks can go down in value, and companies can close. However, it is important to note that if you take the largest 500 stocks together (S&P 500), the average value has consistently gone up over the long term. In the last 35 years, this average value has gone up about 11%. At this rate, your investment would double in less than 7 years. To avoid the risk of picking a losing stock, you can invest in a mutual fund, which is a collection of stocks, bonds, or other investments. The idea is that you can, with one investment, invest in many stocks, essentially earning the average performance of all the stocks. There is still risk, as the market can be down as a whole, but you are insulated from any one stock being bad because you are diversified. If you are investing for something in the long-term future, such as retirement, stock mutual funds provide a good rate of return at an acceptably-low level of risk, in my opinion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7246080679e57da969988ad366823779", "text": "(Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3338cdf93ea8e4afd56c25c5749a9ce7", "text": "\"Retirement accounts often can be invested with pretax money, with the exception of Roth accounts that use post-tax and have tax-free growth if you follow the rules, rather than after tax money as well as provide a shelter so that you aren't having to pay annual taxes on dividends and other possible distributions. Another point would be to consider how much money you'd be investing as some funds may have institutional versions that can be much cheaper than others, e.g. compare Vanguard's index funds that the 500 Index in Investor shares, Admiral shares and institutional forms where the tickers would be VFINX, VFIAX, VINIX, VIIIX to consider. Some companies may have access to the institutional funds that aren't what you'd have unless you are investing millions of dollars upfront. Lastly, if there isn't an employer plan and you make a ton of cash, you may not qualify for a deductible IRA or Roth IRA contribution for something else that may happen if you want to start playing with, \"\"What if.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d271fde89192fa9fe39cca5339245c5a", "text": "One thing that kept me from doing a budget for years is how complex some people make it. For example you list your gross pay, then deduct the taxes, 401K, FSA, etc... Why? Those are pretty consistent. For me, the way this is budgeted is I list my net pay, and go from there. If you were perfect in predicting your FSA, you would have no medical expenses on your budget! Simple, easy budget! Now this year, you will probably have to pay out of pocket for some expenses. Can you predict how much? Can your disposable income absorb the overages? If not you will need to start a sinking fund. That is put a sufficient amount of money into a savings account each month to cover the shortage. Keep in mind you can go over a bit on your FSA contributions. If you find yourself near the end of the plan year with extra money, you can also claim mileage reimbursement for your medical appointments. Since your FSA has a history of those, it is easy to calculate your mileage from your home to the DR's office and submit a claim.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2355fd290d4917d14f57a1c73572a49", "text": "Not as you suggest. Since you are sole prop, you are taxed on a cash basis. Within reason, you can prepay vendors - so temp to hire through an agency might appear more attractive than direct hire. But there needs to be a justification other than avoidance of taxes. So pre-paying 100k on 12/25 would look fishy as fuck. Plus your quality of candidate will suffer if you need anything other than low skill labor. Look at your other fully deductible expenses - anything you can prepay-prepay. For example, I set my liability insurance renewal January 15 to provide optionality. But it just shifts one year into another .. Means fuckall if you are in the same marginal bracket next year. The IRS has also relaxed depreciation on office technology. Computers are now fully deductible rather than being capitalized. @ 500k revenue you should have a CPA and legal counsel. Simply incorporating isn't tax magic. The purpose is to limit yourersonal liability, not a tax shelter - but shitty things happen once you have employees, don't create the potential for a disgruntled employee lawsuit put your shelter at risk of court judgment. That said, assuming you aren't dumping a hypothetical on the Internet, congrats - for all the headaches, having employees is the ultimate leverage .. it's like a xerox machine for your labor (including loss of fidelity with each copy) ..", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d6960968bae59a344da844853fb3054", "text": "These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da7091305164c0b4b783b57f8f1d2d58", "text": "The software he is talking about readjusts your portfolio weights back to your original allocation on a semi-constant basis. Basically it's designed to replace the stereotypical, lazy financial advisor. Your second point is quite valid though... One such example for anyone reading who has a young child is a coverdell ESA which allows you to put pretax income into an investment fund and withdraw tax free to spend on anything education related including the primary and secondary level (ie books, Supplies, field trips, tutoring, etc.). Basically money youd probably spend anyway, but this way you skip out on some taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0443274c12206bfb63207309d55bb569", "text": "As far as broad principles, I think that you are on track. The only suggestion I would have is to look into HSAs. They are another great tax-advantaged account, accessible to those with high incomes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ee2984c54c112d43b0ba985c3b222f1", "text": "\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "578c0b40fda66543adc52992342ef09f", "text": "One snag in your plan is that you alone can't undo your HSA contributions because you would also owe FICA taxes on that amount, and those need to be paid by both you and your employer. The only way for that to happen is for your employer to undo your HSA contributions from their point of view so those wages can be entirely taxed with both FICA and regular withholding. How that is accomplished will probably be up to them. It could mean you pulling the money out of the HSA account, and then either giving it back to your employer so they can re-allocate it with a new check, or, if you have enough pay due between now and the end of the year you could keep the money and they can reduce your next paycheck(s) by the total additional taxes due. Note that you should prefer the latter if possible, since this way you would get to keep the $1000 you shouldn't have gotten in the first place. Also, note that when you withdraw the money from your HSA account you need to inform your bank that you are undoing the contributions rather than taking distributions (and likely fill out a form). If you don't inform them they will improperly report to the IRS that you had contributions and an equal amount of distributions, which could muddy the waters with also having an FSA.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e44b53ef5de08108d637c1fd56adf666	Motley fool says you can make $15,978 more per year with Social Security. Is this for real?	[ { "docid": "a6d379e1608fb9f5784adae4c5e216d7", "text": "The purpose of this spammy Motley Fool video ad is to sell their paid newsletter products. Although the beginning of the video promises to tell you this secret trick for obtaining additional Social Security payments, it fails to do so. (Luckily, I found a transcript of the video, so I didn't have to watch it.) What they are talking about is the Social Security File and Suspend strategy. Under this strategy, one spouse files for social security benefits early (say age 66). This allows the other spouse to claim spousal benefits. Immediately after that is claimed, the first spouse suspends his social security benefits, allowing them to grow until age 70, but the other spouse is allowed to continue to receive spousal benefits. Congress has ended this loophole, and it will no longer be available after May 1, 2016.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5e02604ba9a683a904508ddc6fb0142a", "text": "\"Both are saying essentially the same thing. The Forbes articles says \"\"as much as 20% [...] up to a maximum of $50,000\"\". This means the same as what the IRS page when it says the lesser of a percentage of your income or a total of $53,000. In other words, the $53k is a cap: you can contribute a percentage of your earnings, but you can never contribute more than $53k, even if you make so much money that 20% of your earnings would be more than that. (The difference between 20% and 25% in the two sources appears to reflect a difference in contribution limits depending on whether you are making contributions for employees, or for yourself as a self-employed individual; see Publication 560. The difference between $50k and $53k is due to the two pages being written in different years; the limits increase each year.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e381aeb1110d8b207c75ddc922101ea8", "text": "Interesting. The answer can be as convoluted/complex as one wishes to make it, or back-of-envelope. My claim is that if one starts at 21, and deposits 10% of their income each year, they will likely hit a good retirement nest egg. At an 8% return each year (Keep in mind, the last 40 years produced 10%, even with the lost decade) the 10% saver has just over 15X their final income as a retirement account. At 4% withdrawal, this replaces 60% of their income, with social security the rest, to get to nearly 100% or so replacement. Note - I wrote an article about Social Security Benefits, showing the benefit as a percent of final income. At $50K it's 42%, it's a higher replacement rate for lower income, but the replacement rate drops as income rises. So, the $5000 question. For an individual earning $50K or less, this amount is enough to fund their retirement. For those earning more, it will be one of the components, but not the full savings needed. (By the way, a single person has a standard deduction and exemption totaling $10150 in 2014. I refer to this as the 'zero bracket.' The next $8800 is taxed at 10%. Why go 100% Roth and miss the opportunity to fund these low or no tax withdrawals?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a9aa33e09a9a2b30001f705eb0760b0", "text": "In 1970, lots of people supported one senior on Social Security. Now, comparatively few people support that one senior. In the future, demographic projections say we're going to get to the point where there's more than one senior on Social Security per working taxpayer. This is expected to be a Problem, since it's a lot easier for a government to pay for one $5k Social Security check on five peoples' $3k tax payment than it is for them to pay for one $5k SS check on three peoples' $3k tax payment, and everyone's scratching their head wondering how they're going to pay for one $5k SS check on one person's $3k tax payment. (These numbers are of course made up, intended more as an illustration of the issue than an accurate summary of the numbers involved.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "983096f3afa1f54c5e96cfe44c01b014", "text": "So a interesting note is that this doesn't seem to take into account cost of living arbitrage OR investments. The reason it's so good to make that money isn't so you can spend it on sports cars and cheap (read: expensive) women. If you invest you can put away like 50k/year, which will probably net you at least 5% return per year (more if you're risky) . So you make 100k for like 5 years, put away 250k and get like 20k from doing nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c410c3f34c1308251be242ba3ffd46c8", "text": "Why don't you go complain about SS? That is far more of a ponzi scheme than the Fed. And the difference is, the government HAS an actual way to generate income. Last I checked, ponzi schemes were developed because there was a severe lack of incoming cash flow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7656ef45cba6e4625dec01393a52132b", "text": "My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eec8a0d4261a16a0a0758f71f204b57a", "text": "As Dilip commented, the Social Security web site is pretty comprehensive. Understanding Supplemental Security Income SSI Income has the details you are looking for. It's a convoluted equation. You lose SSI at a pretty fast rate as earned income rises. The system is not kind to those who qualify for SSI but try to earn some money to cover their needs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb78091094c61cbf35643c978ba23f06", "text": "I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis. This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62. Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo. At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that. Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "324c8a281655f4ecc88e989453d407c0", "text": "Yeah. CEOs that make $1/year aren't doing it as a labor of love. It's because they'd exceed a threshold (I think it's around $75k salary) that makes their capital gains taxes jump. If they have a significant amount of money invested it costs them far more in taxes than their salary would otherwise be worth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc3d48259d5f94ea4b2f9e5f8ee45386", "text": "\"The same author wrote in that article “they have a trillion? Really?” But that’s what happens when ten million dollars compounds at 2% over 200 years. Really? 2% compounded over 200 years produces a return of 52.5X, multiply that by 10M and you have $525 million. The author is off by a factor of nearly 2000 fold. Let's skip this minor math error. The article is not about 401(k)s. His next line is \"\"The whole myth of savings is gone.\"\" And the article itself, \"\"10 Reasons You Have To Quit Your Job In 2014\"\" is really a manifesto about why working for the man is not the way to succeed long term. And in that regard, he certainly makes good points. I've read this author over the years, and respect his views. 9 of the 10 points he lists are clear and valuable. This one point is a bit ambiguous and falls into the overgeneraluzation \"\"Our 401(k) have failed us.\"\" But keep in mind, even the self employed need to save, and in fact, have similar options to those working for others. I have a Solo 401(k) for my self employment income. To be clear, there are good 401(k) accounts and bad. The 401(k) with fees above 1%/yr, and no matching, awful. The 401(k) I have from my job before I retired has an S&P index with .02%/yr cost. (That's $200/$million invested per year.) The 401(k) is not dead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7f83a97dfce677a8cbbe76aa56d822a", "text": "> Smith earned $15 million in total compensation in 2016, including a $1.5-million base salary and $7.3 million in stock awards, according to the company’s securities filings. > As of Dec. 31, his pension was valued at $18.4 million, the filings showed. Smith is entitled to that pension “under any circumstances,” Gutzmer said.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e5a9ab91aabd01443c114298a758a79", "text": "There is one way to make money quickly. If you are married and both are over 50 and you can put money into a deductible IRA for 2014. The $5,500 contribution and $1,000 catch-up per person would allow the family to make a contribution of $13,000. If they are in the 25% tax bracket the $3,250 drop in their taxes would allow them to get a $325 bonus from their tax software. Of course they would have already had to be getting a refund before the IRA contribution, or the new refund and bonus would be smaller. They would have had to meet all the program rules. And they must have a combination of 401Ks and AGI to allow deductible contributions. This would drastically shorten the initial loan period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "42c134a5f892688932e2132d9a0524bd", "text": "\"You'd need to test the assumptions here - in effect you're saying that in 15 years your account will have a balance 10x your income. But normally you'd expect your income to grow over the years (e.g. promotions) and so you'd hope that your income in 15 years would be significantly larger than what it is now. But, even in the case where your account eventually does grow to 10x your salary at that time, it may still be worth continuing to contribute. In effect, adding a further 1% to your account is boosting the \"\"compounding return\"\" on your account by 1% - after fees and risk free. This additional 1% \"\"return\"\" in effect makes your retirement plan safer - you either get a higher total return for the same investment mix, or you can get the same total return for a slightly safer investment mix. In effect, you're treating your salary as a \"\"safe\"\" annuity and each year putting 10% of the \"\"return\"\" from that into your more risky retirement account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62b1bff0867bf1dea1f42dea7f62d8ab", "text": "\"LOL!!! Once elderly can live off social security alone, we can then talk about \"\"Universal basic income\"\". Just a reminder: Social Security was originally tax free and reasonable. Today, it's taxed, it varies depending on the age you claim it, it's gone if you have too much income, does not increase according to inflation, and this year they removed the \"\"claim and suspend\"\" option. P/S: by the time I retire, I doubt I will get anything form SS... so I don't even count on SS when saving for retirement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caf4adfd21859c172926d3c5efe935fd", "text": "\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5a26d354eb2c2ccb5caa6c2d6a56862e	Digital envelope system: a modern take	[ { "docid": "43c9c4cda34b5d159e31c8cd2a15b93b", "text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b2b808ca2935370e8bc330da96ea4ef", "text": "\"I definitely get where you're coming from. The envelope system sounds good, but doesn't appeal to most people under 50 for many of these reasons (physical cash in my hand is just a hassle - it has no appeal or reduced spending affect on me). There are various options for prepaid debit cards such as https://www.netspend.com/ or you could use gift cards for things like gas and groceries (though that likely won't get you duplicate cards or automatic payments). As far as automatic payments, just set that up through your bank. So it's still not a perfect solution. I wish there was a better, more straightforward way, but this is the best as far as I know. Update: Ramsey solutions has since launched EveryDollar. This is Dave's preferred solution for an online \"\"digital envelope system\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "810435c5809639511389c5fc99eb133e", "text": "\"While Googling answers for a similar personal dilemma I found Mvelopes. I already have a budget but was looking for a digital way for my husband and I to track our purchases so we know when we've \"\"used the envelope\"\". It's a free app.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab1c07bc400ed26ad2297bc01d8e097d", "text": "\"The whole point of the \"\"envelope system\"\" as I understand it is that it makes it easy to see that you are staying within your budget: If the envelope still has cash in it, then you still have money to spend on that budget category. If you did this with a bunch of debit cards, you would have to have a way to quickly and easily see the balance on that card for it to work. There is no physical envelope to look in. If your bank lets you check your balance with a cell-phone app I guess that would work. But at that point, why do you need separate debit cards? Just create a spreadsheet and update the numbers as you spend. The balance the bank shows is always going to be a little bit behind, because it takes time for transactions to make it through the system. I've seen on my credit cards that sometimes transactions show up the same day, but other times they can take several days or even a week or more. So keeping a spreadsheet would be more accurate, or at least, more timely. But all that said, I can check my bank balance and my credit card balances on web sites. I've never had a desire to check from a cell phone but at least some banks have such apps -- my daughter tells me she regularly checks her credit card balance from her cell phone. So I don't see why you couldn't do it with off-the-shelf technology. Side not, not really related to your question: I don't really see the point of the envelope system. Personally, I keep my checkbook electronically, using a little accounting app that I wrote myself so it's customized to my needs. I enter fixed bills, like insurance premiums and the mortgage payment, about a month in advance, so I can see that that money is already spoken for and just when it is going out. Besides that, what's the advantage of saying that you allot, say, $50 per month for clothes and $100 for gas for the car and $60 for snacks, and if you use up all your gas money this month than you can't drive anywhere even though you have money left in the clothes and snack envelopes? I mean, it makes good sense to say, \"\"The mortgage payment is due next week so I can't spend that money on entertainment, I have to keep it to pay the mortgage.\"\" But I don't see the point in saying, \"\"I can't buy new shoes because the shoe envelope is empty. I've accumulated $5000 in the shampoo account since I went bald and don't use shampoo any more, but that money is off limits for shoes because it's allocated to shampoo.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c64396bb5c2c08864a7a9b1276fab0b", "text": "\"If psychologically there is no difference to you between cash and debit (you should test this over a couple of months on yourself and spouse to make sure), then I suggest two debit cards (one for you and spouse) on your main or separate checking account. If you use Mint you can set budgets for each category (envelope) and when a purchase is made Mint will automatically categorize that transaction and deduct that amount from the correct budget. For example: If you have a \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget set at $100 per month and you use the debit at McDonalds, Mint should automatically categorize it as \"\"Fast Food\"\" and deduct the amount from the \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget that you set. If it can't determine a category or gets it wrong, you can just select the proper category. Mint has an iPhone (also Android and Windows phone) app that I find very easy to use. Many people state that they don't have this psychologically difference between spending cash and debit/credit, but I would say that most actually do, especially with small purchases. It doesn't have anything to do with intellect or knowing that you are actually spending money. It has more to do with tangibility, and the physical act of handing over cash. You may not add that soda and candy bar to your purchase if you have visible cash in your wallet that will disappear more quickly. I lived in Germany for 2 years before debit cards were around or common. I'm a sharp guy and even though I knew that I paid $100 for the 152 DM, it still kind of felt like spending Monopoly money, especially considering that in the US we are used to coins normally being 25 cents or less and in Germany coins are up to 10 DM (almost $10) and are used more frequently than paper.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd33cf6470421860ee098c213b08e658", "text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8bac368ca853f6b6e11ffa469ed47e9", "text": "Envudu (envudu.com) looks very promising, and I think what they are planning to put out will do essentially everything you want. It's a single prepaid card, but with a connected app. On the app you choose which budget category you're going to spend on next, and then swipe your card. Your purchase gets deducted from that category. There aren't a ton of details yet on their website (e.g., what happens if you try to swipe on a category that doesn't have the funds available?) and there is going to be a $20/year fee, but I think it meets all of your criteria, even though it's a single card--you'll just need to use a smartphone with it.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ba48743ac51c9ed30e26179b6bd711f7", "text": "\"At times the issue seems to be one of reading comprehension and general information processing. Regardless of length or depth, an email allows for both clarity of message and a persistent record to refresh from. Yet people default to these hugely inefficient meetings. Modern meetings also seem to suffer from an issue with mob rule. Very rarely do meeting \"\"coordinators\"\" do anything but kick off meetings, instead of acting as a whip/coordinator. Everyone puts more value on a faux-friendly workplace than an efficient one, so no one is willing to be the heavy that keeps the meeting focused and on schedule.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31048bb1b2a03ac9ca64d3e9576afa17", "text": "Not that easy!. There’s millions of lines of code and so much logic added over the years. Programmers would add a comment line and insert the code. No one had time to cleanup or rewrite of remodularize functionality. They just piled on it !. Y2K happened and it corrected and renamed whole bunch of date fields and code to work for rollover year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9f2251b7f7046f30b2f76d04bf341a5", "text": "this is absolutely correct.Take the very simplest of fast food - Subway - and try to automate it. You will get some sort of 3D printer type device. It makes no sense.. there is no way it can work. There is no way you can deliver made-to-order food with a computer right now, not even close. Also, ask yourself, do you want a robot-made pizza in an era of farm-to-table organic free-range etc?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "259214949481607d982ee738ff17c7a3", "text": "Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f535c8018919d789c01d6893d1d7c134", "text": "Yes, indeed. For example, Ford Motor Company's website has a bit about them. Is there any advantage to having an actual physical note instead of a website? You can safeguard them yourself. Which may or may not be a good thing. It certainly brings up a bit of hassle and extra costs if you want to sell them. Though you can have lost certificates replaced, so there is more to it than just having physical possession of the certificates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "806551235283f9d9a95065c5b04a2cbc", "text": "neobudget.com is a website that does exactly what you are describing. It is set up for electronically using the envelope system of budgeting. Disclosure: neobudget was founded by a former coworker of mine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b976a4e8ad6d19afe38dbcd68dd0e15d", "text": "Some Canadian banks (RBC for instance), will accept the format No spaces, no slashes. Transit number must be five digits, if it's not add a 0 to the front. Just had a situation where the European-based system would not accept anything but an IBAN, so I called my bank and that's what they confirmed. I know this is super late, but thought I would leave it here for future generations to discover. Edit: See comments for an example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "628c3067ea375916b6858a5828d2d35e", "text": "Most of them have what is known as an Admin. They are basically a modern secretary. They pre-read all emails, setup all meetings, basically run the day in/day out of the person. Then the person will sit down and answer the curated inbox or forwarded messages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ba4ad30339ad50ab0a1c9dce238994a8", "text": "None-fanboy source [here](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/05/top-android-phone-maker-faces-u-s-import-ban-tuesday/). Links to the two patents here: ['647 - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647) ['263 - Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data ](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,343,263.PN.&OS=PN/6,343,263&RS=PN/6,343,263) I don't believe '647 will be a real threat because the language it uses means the patent is extremely broad and describes something that is fundamental to the operation of practically every web browser, indexing software and electronic guide on the planet. Like Samsung's (I think) attempt to injunct the iPhone using its 3G patents, the ITC will likely rule that the technology/system is too critical to modern function and hence cannot be a valid reason for injunction. '263, however, is a real problem for Android. My interpretation of the patent is that it's claiming a system where the OS parses data from a wirelessly transmitted stream based on type and offers it to other apps instead of having apps actively request data from the OS. As I understand it, this is exactly how Android's intent-activity model works. Because this model of data sharing is at the core of Android and fundamental to its design, it's practically impossible to circumvent without completely rewriting Android, which would break everything. Furthermore, because there is a clear alternative on how to share data (ie. apps request from OS, OS gives data parsed from stream), the protection used against the 3G injunction attempt against Apple cannot be used here. Simply put, the ITC can easily put an injunction on HTC on the basis of '263, and if it does, then all Android phones can expect to receive similar injunctions very very quickly after that. It would be nice to see what /r/business thinks any possible injunction may have not only on the stocks of the smartphone companies but also on the entire smartphone market as a whole. Personally, I think any injunction based on either patent will make the stocks of any Android makers and Google plummet. It would probably chill the mobile market for a while as investors try to guess just what other patents Apple might be able to use against the remaining platforms of Blackberry and Windows Phone 7. And then things will probably return to normal, sans Android and the companies that strongly supported it like Samsung, HTC and Motorola. Samsung and Moto will probably the worst hit, while HTC will end up focusing on WinPhone 7. Thoughts?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b77273be7b1b9dee9ec4e8ed82d16307", "text": "this sounds like a course question lol. There are plenty of ways, don't think too deep into it as a question. e-mail, bulletin boards, physical mail, cloud computing/storage and the internet in general has changed the way documents are distributed and obtained.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b02daafca29b7bbe93f39f915a49050f", "text": "meh,, regardless, it's obvious that the revenue of the USPS will continue to fall with online everything happening. I would suggest we should start winding it down with full dismantle in 25 years. There is no need. Private companies can service our postal needs now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f1198a7edd481bd8811ecf23bee391f", "text": "If I designed a system that handled multimillion dollar orders, I'd have the foresight to include a timestamp / order #, so resubmissions didn't generate duplicate charges. But that's probably just me and my small town ways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "509d3284262f1f1301edb5bdf841ae46", "text": "If you really care about security you need to use the minimum amount of technology required to accomplish your task. Systems can be mathematically proven correct but it requires exponential cost as complexity increases. This is why NASA pays about $1,000 per line of code whereas the industry average is $18. You could certainly build a system out of off the shelf parts, and it would probably work. But there is no way to prove that a backdoor wasn't inserted at the factory in China or by a malicious developer paid off by some foreign government. That $4 USB key you have was not designed with nuclear security in mind. Even if you got the source code proven correctness would cost more than developing it yourself from scratch. Yet you claim that somehow this unproven system is superior to a proven system in place for decades. Why because it is flashy? What extra functionality could it possibly offer?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a81d6496e47f01fe0a67defed241c115", "text": "I'd argue that society would likely moved to 100% online delivered to your doorstep before this actually happened, thus removing the need for physical locations, but as someone who actually works at Amazon, yes 100% automation is their long term goal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "daeffb1714d8e8a6204b007f0b5e978a", "text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d5411571b5f6a5ed42859065805c6a04	I have $10,000 sitting in an account making around $1 per month interest, what are some better options?	[ { "docid": "e07c617f1278b936ca41ad293ffd4b98", "text": "Based on your question, I am going to assume your criterion are: Based on these, I believe you'd be interested in a different savings account, a CD, or money market account. Savings account can get you up to 1.3% and money market accounts can get up to 1.5%. CDs can get you a little more, but they're a little trickier. For example, a 5 year CD could get up to 2%. However, now you're money is locked away for the next few years, so this is not a good option if this money is your emergency fund or you want to use it soon. Also, if interest rates increase then your money market and savings accounts' interest rates will increase but your CD's interest rate misses out. Conversely, if interest rates drop, you're still locked into a higher rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab5c0b3904c45e0960885dd9f01ac434", "text": "There are many considerations before deciding on the best place for your funds: How liquid do you need the funds to be? If this is for an emergency fund I would keep at least some in an account that you have instant access to, What is your risk (volatility) tolerance? Would you be OK with the value dropping by as much as 30% in a year knowing that over time you'll probably earn 8-12% on it? If not, then equity funds or other stock investments are probably not the best move for you. Do you need the funds now or are they for long-term (retirement) savings? Are you eligible to fund an IRA? That would defer your taxes until you withdraw the funds from the account, but there are age restrictions that you must heed to avoid penalties. Are CDs a good idea? They do pay decent interest, but in return for that you lock up your funds for a set period of time. All that to say that there are many facets to determining the best place for your funds. If you provide more specifics you can get a more specific answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e6a58bfec2d691dde557b21966cd70b", "text": "I disagree with most of the answers here so far because they are either too risky or too conservative and don't take taxes and retirement into consideration. OP, keep in mind the higher the potential return, the greater the risk. You haven't stated your risk tolerance, but consider the following: Pick a certain percentage of your $10k to invest for the long term. Pick a low-cost index fund like the S&P500 Index. Historically this investment does well in the long run, and it gets you started in investing. Keep the balance, the money you will need for the short term, right where it is not earning much interest. Have you started saving for retirement? Consider starting a Roth IRA (if you are in the USA) with some of the money for tax advantages. It's up to you to decide how much you should invest and how much you need to keep on hand for emergencies or short-term needs. There are plenty related questions on this forum you can browse.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "373e281cda5e3354813a774428a4c3c8", "text": "What is your risk tolerance? Personally I invest about $5k in digital currency as an experiment. A lot of people told me I am stupid, which I agree at some point. I plan to let the money sit for 5~10 years. I can tell you there is a lot of emotion in the digital currency though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "618817dc214847674bc77147bbcc8d47", "text": "\"Put the whole lot into a couple of low-cost broad index funds with dividends reinvested (also known as accumulation funds) and then don't look at them. Invest through a low-cost broker. There are a number to choose from and once you start googling around the theme of \"\"index fund investing\"\" you'll find them. The S&P 500 is a popular index to start with.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9812d64c3ece8001274f40ca58b458fb", "text": "\"Assuming you've got no significant prepayment penalty, I would think about getting a longer mortgage, but making payments like it was a shorter mortgage. This will get the mortgage paid off in a shorter time period - but if you run into financial difficulties and/or find a better use for your money, you can drop back to paying the minimum necessary to retire the loan in 30 years without needing to refinance. (If you need to reduce your payments because you're between jobs, you don't have a very good negotiating position). For the most part, there's nothing that says you can only make one payment per month, or that it must be in the amount printed on the statement. If you want to, you can make payments weekly (or biweekly, or every 4 weeks) which typically means that you'll pay more every year. If your mortgage payments are $1000/month, that's $12,000 per year. If you tell yourself that 1000/month = $250 weekly and make yourself send a payment every week (or 500 every 2 weeks), you'll end up paying 250 * 52 = $13,000 per year, without particularly feeling the difference, especially if you get paid on a weekly/biweekly schedule instead of monthly or semi-monthly. Also, by paying more often, you're borrowing a tiny bit less money over the course of the year (because the money didn't sit in your account waiting until the 1st of the month to make a payment) so you save a little in interest there, too. Think of \"\"30 years\"\" or \"\"10 years\"\" as the basis for a minimum payment schedule, not necessarily the length of time that you or the lender really intend to keep the loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ae51aec7487f3a23fc9eb5b91d38c5e", "text": "\"The $1K in funds are by default your emergency fund. If absolutely necessary, emergency funds may need to come from debt, a credit capacity, focus on building credit to leverage lower rates for living expenses eventually needed. Profitable organizations & proprietors, borrow at a lower cost of capital than their return. Join your local credit union, you're welcome to join mine online, the current rates for the first $500 in both your checking and savings is 4.07%, it's currently the fourth largest in the U.S. by assets. You may join as a \"\"family member\"\" to me (Karl Erdmann), not sure what their definition of \"\"family\"\" is, I'd be happy to trace our ancestry if need be or consider other options. Their current incentive program, like many institutions have often, will give you $100 for going through the hassle to join and establish a checking and savings. Some institutions, such as this credit union, have a lower threshold to risk, applicants may be turned down for an account if there is any negative history or a low credit score, shooting for a score of 600 before applying seems safest. The web services, as you mentioned, have significantly improved the layman's ability to cost effectively invest funds and provide liquidity. Robinhood currently seems to be providing the most affordable access to the market. It goes without saying, stay objective with your trust of any platform, as you may have noticed, there is a detailed explanation of how Robinhood makes their money on this stack exchange community, they are largely backed by venture funding, hopefully the organization is able to maintain a low enough overhead to keep the organization sustainable in the long run. The services that power this service such as Plaid, seem promising and underrated, but i digress. The platform gives access for users to learn how investing works, it seems safest to plan a diversified portfolio utilizing a mix of securities,such as low Beta stocks or \"\"blue chip\"\" companies with clear dividend policies. One intriguing feature, if you invest in equities is casting votes on decisions in shareholder meetings. Another popular investment asset class that is less liquid and perhaps something to work toward is real estate. Google the economist \"\"Matthew Rognlie\"\" for his work on income equality on this type of investment. There are many incentives for first time homeowners, saving up for a down payment is the first step. Consider adding to your portfolio a Real Estate Investment Trust (REITs) to gain a market position. Another noteworthy approach to this idea is an investment commercial property cooperative organization, currently the first and only one is called NorthEast Investment Cooperative, one stock of class A is $1K. If you are interested and plan to focus on equities, consider dropping into your college's Accounting Capstone course to learn more about the the details of fundamental and technical analysis of an organization. The complexities of investing involve cyclical risk, macro and micro economic factors, understanding financial statements and their notes, cash flow forecasting - discounting, market timing, and a host of other details Wikipedia is much more helpful at detailing. It's safe to assume initial investment decisions by unsophisticated investors are mostly whimsical, and likely will only add up to learning opportunities, however risk is inherit in all things, including sitting on cash that pays a price of inflation. A promising mindset in long term investments are in organizations that focus on conscious business practices. Another way to think of investing is that you are already somewhat of a \"\"sophisticated investor\"\" and could beat the market by what you know given your background, catching wind of certain information first, or acting on a new trends or technology quickly. Move carefully with any perhaps biased \"\"bullish\"\" or \"\"bearish\"\" mindset. Thinking independently is helpful, constantly becoming familiar with different ideas from professions in a diverse set of backgrounds, and simulating decisions in portfolio's. Here is an extremely limited set of authors and outlets that may have ideas worth digging more into, MIT Tech Reviews (Informative), Bloomberg TV (it's free, informative), John Mackey (businessman), Paul Mason (provocative journalist). Google finance is a simple and free go-to application, use the \"\"cost basis\"\" feature for \"\"paper\"\" or real trades, it's easy to import transactions from a .csv. This seems sufficient to start off with. Enjoy the journey, aim for real value with your resources.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11892ed9e5d1eccc37a4e36c24e5b22a", "text": "Correct. By putting expenses on to a credit card which does not charge interest during the grace period, and paying that balance every month, in effect you earn interest on money you've already spent. However, first, savings account interest is something like .05% right now depending on your bank. Yeah it's money, but seriously, that's 4 cents per month on $1000. Second, two things can make this very wrong. If you carry a balance, you'll pay much more in interest than you'd get from practically any investment you could make with the cash in the meantime. Second, a debit card can be used to get cash you already have from an ATM (not everyone takes credit, you know), and it'll cost you little or nothing. Use a credit card for the same purpose and you're paying 40% from the second the money comes out of the machine. Also correct. Rewards cards earn you more the more they're used. That's because the card issuer makes money based on usage; they get 3% of each transaction. They're happy to turn 1% of that, up to a limit or subject to a spending floor, back around to you. Again, check the terms and conditions. Most cards have a limit on total rewards. Many of them also have fees, either while you hold the card or when you try to redeem the rewards. Look for a card with high limits or no limits on rewards from spending, and with no annual fee or reward redemption fee. In addition to the above, you build good credit history with good spending patterns. However, your credit score can fluctuate wildly, because on one day you have very low leverage (percent of credit limit used), and on the next you've bought $200 in groceries and so your leverage went up 20% on a card with a $1000 limit. Leverage under 10% is good, leverage under 40% is OK and leverage over that starts looking bad. With a $1000 limit, with you maxing it out and then paying it off, your credit score can fluctuate by 30 points on any given day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45a94835e7b1f2f31c82908701d2220c", "text": "I'd have a look at Capital One's Online account too, they've got 1.35% interest rate with 10% bonus if you have over $15k deposited. It is still low like all interest rates, but at least it is on top (or at least close)!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6dec2b363e24bdd007f21f55cd16a61", "text": "The simplest way is just to compute how much money you'd have to have invested elsewhere to provide a comparable return. For example, if you assume a safe interest rate of 2.3% per year, you would need to have about $520,000 to get $1,000/month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef766e9342446f6bc029e165678eb0f7", "text": "I recommend an online savings account. The money is more liquid without early withdrawal fees and frequently you can get a visa/mastercard check card to access the funds. Looking at interest rates, ING is currently paying 1.10% and bankrate reports the best interest rate in the country on a 1 year CD is 1.33%. The .23% difference is not enough to convince me to invest in CDs at a fixed rate vs. an online savings account at a variable rate when we are at (or near) the bottom of CD/savings interest rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "522126a55f542900e3ee89f63cfd3395", "text": "\"Given the current low interest rates - let's assume 4% - this might be a viable option for a lot of people. Let's also assume that your actual interest rate after figuring in tax considerations ends up at around 3%. I think I am being pretty fair with the numbers. Now every dollar that you save each month based on the savings and invest with a higher net return of greater than 3% will in fact be \"\"free money\"\". You are basically betting on your ability to invest over the 3%. Even if using a conservative historical rate of return on the market you should net far better than 3%. This money would be significant after 10 years. Let's say you earn an average of 8% on your money over the 10 years. Well you would have an extra $77K by doing interest only if you were paying on average of $500 a month towards interest on a conventional loan. That is a pretty average house in the US. Who doesn't want $77K (more than you would have compared to just principal). So after 10 years you have the same amount in principal plus $77k given that you take all of the saved money and invest it at the constraints above. I would suggest that people take interest only if they are willing to diligently put away the money as they had a conventional loan. Another scenario would be a wealthier home owner (that may be able to pay off house at any time) to reap the tax breaks and cheap money to invest. Pros: Cons: Sidenote: If people ask how viable is this. Well I have done this for 8 years. I have earned an extra 110K. I have smaller than $500 I put away each month since my house is about 30% owned but have earned almost 14% on average over the last 8 years. My money gets put into an e-trade account automatically each month from there I funnel it into different funds (diversified by sector and region). I literally spend a few minutes a month on this and I truly act like the money isn't there. What is also nice is that the bank will account for about half of this as being a liquid asset when I have to renegotiate another loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6871d8efa74a9cf17f99e55876c1270", "text": "There are some high-yield savings accounts out there that might get you close to 1 percent. Shorter term CDs might also serve you well here- rates are above 1 percent, even with 1-2 year terms: http://www.nerdwallet.com/rates/cds/best-cd-rates/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a2d19e8eb04ba44b0b5c379ac50b80d", "text": "If you were going to pay off an 18% credit card and had no hope otherwise, I might agree you should do this. 5.5% student loan, I wouldn't do it. You have multiple issues going on. I would find a bank or broker that will keep the IRA with no fee. Zero. If you buy stocks, there might be a commission, but I'd stick with a low cost index mutual fund. At 10%, the account might double every 7 years, even 35 years till retirement offers 5 doubles or 32X your money. Literally, $100K more for retirement. As a semi-retired old guy, I thank my younger self for putting aside the $3000, so we have over $100K more now. Your student loan is manageable. Save, enjoy yourself, but don't let $7500 at 5.5% keep you up at night.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cc9fda9a30d5e545deb8607f0ed6bc2", "text": "I would suggest you to put your money in an FD for a year, and as soon as you get paid the interest, start investing that interest in a SIP(Systematic investment plan). This is your safest option but it will not give you a lot of returns. But I can guarantee that you will not lose your capital(Unless the economy fails as a whole, which is unlikely). For example: - you have 500000 rupees. If you put it in a fixed deposit for 1 year, you earn 46500 in interest(At 9% compounded quarterly). With this interest you can invest Rs.3875(46500/12) every month in an SIP for 12 months and also renew your FD, so that you can keep earning that interest.So at the end of 10 years, you will have 5 lacs in your FD and Rs. 4,18,500 in your SIP(Good funds usually make 13-16 % a year). Assuming your fund gives you 14%, you make: - 1.) 46500 at 14% for 9 years - 1,51,215 2.)8 years - 1,32,645 3.) 7 years - 1,16,355 4.) 6 years - 1,02,066 5.) 5 years - 89,531 6.) 4 years - 78,536 7.) 3 years - 68891 8.) 2 years 60,431 9.) 1 year - 53010 Total Maturity Value on SIP = Rs, 8,52,680 Principal on FD = Rs 5,00,000 Interest earned on 10th year = Rs. 46,500 Total = Rs. 13,99,180(14 lacs). Please note: - Interest rates and rate of return on funds may vary. This figure can only be assumed if these rates stay the same.:). Cheers!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c89a5b66588725074ec86e667dca8930", "text": "Simply, you should put your money into whatever has the higher interest rate, savings or repayment of debt. Let's say at the beginning of month A you put $1000 into each account. In the case of the savings, at the end of month A you will have $1001.6 ($1000 + 1000 x 2% annual interest / 12) In the case of a loan, at the end of month A you will have $1005.7. ($17000 plus 6.8 interest for one month is 17096.3. On $16000, the new value is 16090.6. The difference between these is $1005.7. 5.7 / 1.6 = 3.56 Therefore, using your money to repay your loan nets you a return about 3.5 times greater.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992d568e9fb89ec12d5ec9d42554e089", "text": "What is your investing goal? And what do you mean by investing? Do you necessarily mean investing in the stock market or are you just looking to grow your money? Also, will you be able to add to that amount on a regular basis going forward? If you are just looking for a way to get $100 into the stock market, your best option may be DRIP investing. (DRIP stands for Dividend Re-Investment Plan.) The idea is that you buy shares in a company (typically directly from the company) and then the money from the dividends are automatically used to buy additional fractional shares. Most DRIP plans also allow you to invest additional on a monthly basis (even fractional shares). The advantages of this approach for you is that many DRIP plans have small upfront requirements. I just looked up Coca-cola's and they have a $500 minimum, but they will reduce the requirement to $50 if you continue investing $50/month. The fees for DRIP plans also generally fairly small which is going to be important to you as if you take a traditional broker approach too large a percentage of your money will be going to commissions. Other stock DRIP plans may have lower monthly requirements, but don't make your decision on which stock to buy based on who has the lowest minimum: you only want a stock that is going to grow in value. They primary disadvantages of this approach is that you will be investing in a only a single stock (I don't believe that can get started with a mutual fund or ETF with $100), you will be fairly committed to that stock, and you will be taking a long term investing approach. The Motley Fool investing website also has some information on DRIP plans : http://www.fool.com/DRIPPort/HowToInvestDRIPs.htm . It's a fairly old article, but I imagine that many of the links still work and the principles still apply If you are looking for a more medium term or balanced investment, I would advise just opening an online savings account. If you can grow that to $500 or $1,000 you will have more options available to you. Even though savings accounts don't pay significant interest right now, they can still help you grow your money by helping you segregate your money and make regular deposits into savings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1a1341a13f2f501d6371c61107829c7", "text": "\"I don't understand the OP's desire \"\" I'd love to have a few hundred dollars coming in each month until I really get the hang of things. \"\" When growing your wealth so that it will be large enough in retirement to throw off enough profits to live on ... you must not touch the profits generated along the way. You must reinvest them to earn even more profits. The profits you earn need not show up as 'cash'. Most investments also grow in re-sale value. This growth is called capital gains, and is just-as/more important than cash flows like interest income or dividends. When evaluating investing choices, you think of your returns as a percent of your total savings at any time. So expecting $100/month equals $1,200/year would require a $12,000 investment to earn 10%/yr. From the sounds of it the OP's principal is not near that amount, and an average 10% should not be expected by an investment with reasonable risk. I would conclude that 'There is no free lunch'. You need to continually save and add to your principal. You must invest to expect a reasonable return (less than 10%) and you must reinvest all profits (whether cash or capital gains). Or else start a business - which cannot be compared to passive investing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccbded8e947dc60198be6d55fec7d18c", "text": "Let's look at some of your options: In a savings account, your $40,000 might be earning maybe 0.5%, if you are lucky. In a year, you'll have earned $200. On the plus side, you'll have your $40,000 easily accessible to you to pay for moving, closing costs on your new house, etc. If you apply it to your mortgage, you are effectively saving the interest on the amount for the life of the loan. Let's say that the interest rate on your mortgage is 4%. If you were staying in the house long-term, this interest would be compounded, but since you are only going to be there for 1 year, this move will save you $1600 in interest this year, which means that when you sell the house and pay off this mortgage, you'll have $1600 extra in your pocket. You said that you don't like to dabble in stocks. I wouldn't recommend investing in individual stocks anyway. A stock mutual fund, however, is a great option for investing, but only as a long-term investment. You should be able to beat your 4% mortgage, but only over the long term. If you want to have the $40,000 available to you in a year, don't invest in a mutual fund now. I would lean toward option #2, applying the money to the mortgage. However, there are some other considerations: Do you have any other debts, maybe a car loan, student loan, or a credit card balance? If so, I would forget everything else and put everything toward one or more of these loans first. Do you have an emergency fund in place, or is this $40,000 all of the cash that you have available to you? One rule of thumb is that you have 3 to 6 months of expenses set aside in a safe, easily accessible account ready to go if something comes up. Are you saving for retirement? If you don't already have retirement savings in place and are adding to it regularly, some of this cash would be a great start to a Roth IRA or something like that, invested in a stock mutual fund. If you are already debt free except for this mortgage, you might want to do some of each: Keep $10,000 in a savings account for an emergency fund (if you don't already have an emergency fund), put $5,000 in a Roth IRA (if you aren't already contributing a satisfactory amount to a retirement account), and apply the rest toward your mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58065cd7e8b02e2176e0b476ec35e97e", "text": "\"Provide you are willing to do a bit of work each month, you should apply for a \"\"rewards checking\"\" account. Basically these accounts require you to set up direct deposit (can be any amount and your employer can easily deposit $25 into one account and the rest into another if you like). They also require you to use your debit card attached to the account (probably about 10 times per month). Check out the list on the fatwallet finance forum. Right now the best accounts are earning over 4%.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fd0711e16e15327568ab329c33f1c1f1	What happens when they run out of letters?	[ { "docid": "3a08bb56370e585519e8d9129bd431e3", "text": "\"The 3-letter tickers are from a different era.... Nowadays the usage of tickers is more of a \"\"legacy\"\" tradition rather than a current necessity. As such they're no longer limited to 3 characters. And the characters don't have to be related to the actual name. For example a company named Alphabet is trading on NASDAQ under the ticker \"\"GOOGL\"\". It has 5 characters, not 3, and (almost) none of them appear in the name of the company (used to, but not anymore).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56d51d676394b5851cf6c07b46b19b7d", "text": "NYSE started allowing four letter tickers around 2009. NASDAQ allows 4-5 letter tickers. I guess they'll keep increasing when / if needed. Companies are allowed to change tickers, although there are costs. Tickers in the US are assigned through a single entity. Companies that are new need to take something that's open. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124296050986346159 I see that you're in Australia, but, since there aren't really that many options to deal with the problem that you mentioned, I'd guess that you'll ultimately do the same. Not sure about how tickers are assigned there though.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b41262077d84080b28713d8b81e5b114", "text": "Banks cannot survive without the government. Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail. The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause. Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system. The burden shifts from the banks to the government. But a gaurantee is not an actual payment. The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt. the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate. So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case. Where does the money come from? Revenues, aka taxes. If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system. If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit. Gov't can print money, don't forget. But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c9dfa3d401ac5c8d14a017ccdf697c3a", "text": "\"So what is the implication of \"\"creating\"\" 12 loddars like that? If enough loddars are created in such a way (basically as IOUs for IOUs, if I'm interpreting this correctly), will we have inflation? What keeps this in check? Is it credibility of whoever issues the promise for loddars? And when those loddars are destroyed -- because of the wildfire or whatever -- is the individual that is \"\"owed\"\" them just screwed? What is an example of this happening in the real world? Would be if a company makes a promise of some payment, and it turns out that it can't be fulfilled? That company would still \"\"owe\"\" that money to someone, right? Sorry for the string of questions tacked on to your great post, but I feel as though you made a very illuminating point and then just stopped. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0dbd2fb7715a83d7c08fc8865c08a4a", "text": "For the record, I would never believe any major media outlet when it comes to a complex economic evaluation. I hope you wouldn't either. The article mentions that people are sending less mail. Maybe you're not old enough to remember sending letters, but people used to do it a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41f63306bc3f9040845fb2bb465aa323", "text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f678cba5b45561cd1e6bdf087202978e", "text": "From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar: As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8d5cf282efac11e79e96e042aacb9f1", "text": "\"... until they collapse too!!! This is \"\"Luft Gesheft\"\": German/Yiddish for \"\"making money out of thin air\"\". Money should be made by making things and building things - adding value to something. Apple Computers is one example - they make real money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "712ff8d60a2cb9c6e1102a6c05c1e352", "text": "\"There will not be enough money to fill the holes that are caused by banks' easy money policies combined with the trillions in derivative \"\"hedges\"\" that the banks have off-balance sheet. The idea is that the chain reaction collapse of the European banking system can be avoided by plugging the holes in the dam in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. But it is a crazy idea. Next comes France, and then what? At some point there is not enough money to plug the holes and the entire facade collapses anyways. Adults would dismantle the Eurozone now and let each country see to itself. Let the banks collapse. Capital (in the form of dollars, gold, etc) will reappear and means will evolve rapidly to connect capital with people who need loans for business. Consumer loans are going the way of the dodo bird.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a32b83f86390f64e2b448abd3dd411ee", "text": "So no single bank is willing to underwrite the whole issuance, and the amount each wants is only roughly a sixth of the total each? Or did Greece limit the amount of the issuance that could be underwritten by one bidder? Just trying to understand.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a35e2e0639412ca13b5848923dc0311e", "text": "\"It depends on whether the loan is written as a non-recourse debt and what collateral was pledged. \"\"Non-recourse\"\" debt means that the issuer is limited to seizing the pledged collateral but cannot extend beyond those pledged assets. A \"\"recourse debt\"\" allows the issuer to seize the collateral and potentially other assets of those signed to the loan. In your example, a non-recourse loan would stop the issuer at seizing the property pledged as collateral (for instance the land remaining after the golden condor took your house), and it would stop there if that was the entirety of the collateral pledged. In the case of a recourse debt, each of you who signed loan are most likely going to be held responsible for the rest of the debt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonrecourse_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recourse_debt\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "09d174e114829e84242c7b2e794828a1", "text": "Somewhere on your block, perhaps even in your neighborhood tonight, someone will become homeless. The reason of their homelessness might be a domestic fight, the loss of a job, or an argument with a parent. Nowadays, it very well could be caused by a foreclosure; but whatever the reason, that family will be all of a sudden on the street.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56b428c168e5c4bff824ccdd0fc4dfa4", "text": "\"It's OK... you can just admit you don't fully understand what happened... Here's a quick run down: 1) Private banks (like Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.) start making bad loans. They do this intentionally because... 2) The bad loans are then bundled into what are called \"\"Mortgage Backed Securities\"\". 3) Ratings agencies like Standard and Poors rate these mortgage backed securities as AAA safe investments. Even though they know, and the banks know, they're junk. 4) Companies who don't (AIG) or can't (Fannie/Freddie) write sub prime mortgages are then sold bad mortgages as AAA rated investments. 5) The sales of investments are so popular and so profitable that the banks continue making more bad loans SOLELY so they can re-sell them as investments. 6) The laws preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from making sub prime loans are lifted and they start doing the same thing as everyone else, just before the collapse begins. For most of the time these hijinks were going on, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were actually prevented from taking part.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802", "text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b125e6b7d643fab3ae3c4f082266a4ab", "text": "True story: There are several Admirals in the United States Navy that still do not understand how to use e-mail. They have their staff print the e-mails into hard copy and then either hand write or type a reply (on a typewriter) for their staff to send back as an e-mail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18937e29c7c41d168272b341dbd4925", "text": "They better wipe their goddamn servers when that happens. Though with the number of mishaps they've had so far they'll probably just move some unencrypted, non-password-protected file named ssns_and_names.xls into the recycle bin and leave the servers on the side of the road, thinking there's no way someone can get the data now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57fd51c1df927384b3918a2977173447", "text": "\"Hi Ly Sok You could give free maps out to your clients. Easily print these off. Talk about the city as you drive through pointing out good value restaurants and places of interest. When someone buys something from me. I try to understand it as \"\"someone buying my time\"\" so I like to think of there problems. Your clients are mostly tourists or locals I assume. Locals like to here local news and learn things -like new roads being built or a cinema opening. Crime and cool things going on. Tourists want to make there money go further and so learning about the best local experience is often what they want to do. A pick up service is often appreciated and possibly you could emphasis to tourists how safe certain areas are and that maybe they should hide there flashy phone or camera in this area. I feel recommendations are the way to go. Giving a number they can text you on makes it easier to send a location. For pick ups. Since uber is a big thing for clients back home. Maybe you could parody the name \"\"TukUber\"\" This would instantly make people remember you and you could also look at how you could make your service like uber on a personal level. Sounds like a fun project. Good luck\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
644f486cca89e369476db00d3f86e1aa	Is a property that comes with tenants a risk?	[ { "docid": "74b0945decbe90d6bd5ec3b69427a43e", "text": "\"The perceived risk depends on the entire situation, but often it is considered more risk, especially if you want to occupy yourself. Things you need to consider: It can be very difficult to show a property with tenants occupying it. There are many reasons for this and most homes show / sell better empty. I have found many tenants make it difficult on the seller. Leaving their areas a mess, being unaccommodating and especially in markets that are flooded with options, a lot of buyers just won't bother with the difficulty of scheduling a showing in occupied properties. I've tried to purchase many properties where the renter insists on being there during a showing, but won't open the door and there's no recourse for the landlord because his lease or laws in the area don't allow you to enter without permission. Also, it can be difficult to look past a lot of clutter and other people's decorating and aroma \"\"preferences\"\" to be kind. :) Is the property currently under lease and what is the period of that lease? It could be that the lease is month to month, or it could be years remaining on the lease period. It is likely a legal requirement in most areas that you honor the existing lease. I would never buy a property that has multiple years remaining. While some amateur landlords will allow 2 or even 5 year leases, this is a very bad idea for many reasons! What are laws like in your area for evicting tenants? You should know this regardless of whether or not you intend to occupy or keep it a rental. It can be a very difficult process evicting tenants and this process is vastly different from country to country and state to state here in the USA. Look into the security deposit - assuming there is one. How much is the deposit? Will it cover damage that may not exist yet? Don't think that just because you plan on evicting them soon, it isn't important. People can trash a place on the way out and an expensive lawsuit could be your only recourse. It is far easier to take a deposit than sue. I would absolutely demand that the deposit transfer to you upon sale. View the current renters with a fresh eye. Especially if you are considering leave it a rental, look into all of the typical requirements: Their monthly income, their credit history, their criminal record, their payment history, their references. Are they likely to be good or terrible renters? If you're interested in the property, consider an offer which requires the current landlord to evict within the time-frame of the buy/sell agreement. This isn't an uncommon requirement. I think the first thing to do is go look at the property and see if you can determine for yourself why it hasn't sold yet. Properties all have different reasons for not selling in a reasonable time to the local market. Having renters alone in most markets shouldn't be that big of a factor. I would suspect bad smells, nasty renters, or an unfavorable lease agreement exists.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "533849b422ef3b33e57bd133c162eba5", "text": "\"With regard to worries about ownership: I'll point you towards this - The Cohabitants Rights Bill currently in First Reading at the House of Lords. Without a date for even the second reading yet. In short the Bill is attempting to redress is the lack of rights when a non-married relationship ends when compared to married relationships; that is that one of the \"\"cohabitants\"\" can end up with basically nothing that they don't have their name on. So currently you're in the clear and (Part 2) Section 6.2.a says the Bill cannot be used retroactively against you if your relationship is over before it becomes law (I expect with Brexit etc, this Bill isn't a high priority - it's been a year since the first reading). Section 6.2.a: This Part does not apply to former cohabitants where the former cohabitants have ceased living together as a couple before the commencement date; However, if you're still together if/when this Bill becomes Law then basically all of (Part 1) Section 2 may be relevant as it notes the conditions you will fall into this bill: Section 2.1.a: live together as a couple and Section 2.2.d: have lived together as a couple for a continuous period of three years or more. and the \"\"have lived together\"\" at that point counts from the start of your cohabitation, not the start of the Bill being law: Section 2.4.a: For the purposes of subsection (2)(d), in determining the length of the continuous period during which two people have lived together as a couple - any period of the relationship that fell before the commencement date (of the Bill) is to be taken into account If you have kids at some point, you'd also fall under 2.2.a through 2.2.c too. After that, the financial parity decided upon by the court depends on a whole bunch of conditions as outlined in the Bill, but Section 8.1.b is pretty clear: Section 8.1.b: (b)the court is satisfied either— (i)that the respondent has retained a benefit; or (ii)40that the applicant has an economic disadvantage, as a result of qualifying contributions the applicant has made I'm not qualified to say whether your partner helping to pay off your mortgage in lieu of paying rent herself would count as just paying rent or giving you an economic benefit. Sections 12, 13, and 14 discuss opt-outs, also worth a read. The a major disclaimer here in that Bills at this early stage have the potential to be modified, scrapped and/or replaced making this info incorrect. As an additional read, here's an FT article from Feb 2016 discussing this lack of rights of a cohabitant which should alleviate any current concerns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77db79bc713af652e61e44c5c4c3506a", "text": "I have been renting rooms out of my house for over 7 years now. When renting to non-family, the arrangement is usually successful. People leave for various reasons, an occasionally I will ask someone to move out if they are not working out. In the USA, this works well because by keeping things formal (rental agreements, etc) you actually have a great business with lots of deductions that end up reducing you net income quite a bit. However, US law makes a big distinction about whether or not you're renting to family/relatives, specifically around whether or not they are paying full-market rent for their room. If not, then you are subsidizing them which could disqualify your property (or at least the portion they are using) from being legitimately rented -- and thus no tax deductions for said activity. The other risk, -- again, in the USA -- is the possibility of a long-term relationship falling under rules of common-law marriage. This is rare unless children are involved. A couple who have children, married or not, may have the courts get involved to oversee the division of assets with regards to ensuring the children have a place to live and adequate financial support. For the UK, I would think the laws would be roughly similar. Check out this website for more a detailed review. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70f7ff51ab5fbb6c5c09eb6c69e86b50", "text": "Don't over analyze it - check with some local landlords that are willing to share some information and resources Then analyze the Worst Case Scenarios and the likelihood of them happening and if you could deal with it if it did happen Then Dive In - Real Estate is a long term investment so you have plenty of time to learn everything..... Most people fail.... because they fail to take the first leap of faith !!!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15d1ca497dfc22d7af0ebe893732281e", "text": "\"There is a term for this. If you google \"\"House Hacking\"\" you will get lots of articles and advice. Some of it will pertain to multifamily properties but a good amount should be owner occupied and renting bedrooms. I would play with a mortgage calculator like Whats My Payment. Include Principle, interest, taxes and insurance see how much it will cost. At 110k your monthly fixed payments will depend on a number of factors (down payment, interest, real estate tax rate and insurance cost) but $700-$1000 would be a decent guess in my area. Going off that with two roommates willing to pay $500 a month you would have no living expenses except any maintenance or utilities. With your income I would expect you could make the payment alone if needed (and it may be needed) so it seems fairly low risk from my perspective. You need somewhere to live you are used to roommates and you can pay the entire cost yourself in a worst case. Some more things to consider.. Insurance will be more expensive, you want to ensure you as the landlord you are covered if anything happens. If a tenant burns down your house or trips and falls and decides to sue you insurance will protect you. Capital Expenses (CapEx) replacing things as they wear out. On a home the roof, siding, flooring and all mechanicals(furnace, water heater, etc.) have a lifespan and will need to be replaced. On rental properties a portion of rent should be set aside to replace these things in the future. If a roof lasts 20yrs,costs $8,000 and your roof is 10years old you should be setting aside $70 a month so in the future when this know expense comes up it is not a hardship. Taxes Yes there is a special way to report income from an arrangement like this. You will fill out a Schedule E form in addition to your regular tax documents. You will also be able to write off a percent of housing expenses and depreciation on the home. I have been told it is not a simple tax situation and to consult a CPA that specializes in real estate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ff18fce91f9e00ae614b18af671a83a", "text": "More possible considerations: Comparability with other properties. Maybe properties that rent for $972 have more amenities than this one (parking, laundry, yard, etc) or are in better repair. Or maybe the $972 property is a block closer to campus and thus commands 30% higher rent (that can happen). Condition of property. You know nothing about this until you see it. It could be in such bad shape that you can't legally rent it until you spend a lot of money fixing it. Or it may just be run down or outdated: still inhabitable but not as attractive to renters, leading to lower rent and/or longer vacancy periods. Do you accept that, or spend a lot of money to renovate? Collecting the rent. Tenants don't necessarily always pay their rent on time, or at all. If a tenant quits paying, you incur significant expenses to evict them and then find a new tenant, and all the while, you collect no rent. There could be a tenant in place paying a much lower rent. Rent control or a long lease may prevent you from raising it. If you are able to raise it, and the tenant doesn't want to pay, see above. Maintenance and more maintenance. College students could be hard on the property; one good kegger could easily cause more damage than their security deposits will cover. Being near a university doesn't guarantee you an easy time renting it. It suggests the demand is high, but maybe the supply is even higher. Renting to college students has additional issues. They are less likely to have incomes large enough to satisfy you that they can pay the rent. Are you willing to deal with cosigners? If a student quits paying, are you willing to try to collect from their cosigning parents in another state? And you'll probably have many tenants (roommates) living in the house. They will come and go separately and unexpectedly, complicating your leasing arrangements. And you may well get drawn in to disputes between them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf1ba57006b76a4812f39d1644608ce8", "text": "You need to first visit the website of whatever state you're looking to rent the property in and you're going to want to form the LLC in that particular state. Find the Department of Licensing link and inquire about forming a standard LLC to register as the owner of the property and you should easily see how much it costs. If the LLC has no income history, it would be difficult for the bank to allow this without requiring you to personally guarantee the loan. The obvious benefit of protecting yourself with the LLC is that you protect any other personal assets you have in your name. Your liability would stop at the loan. The LLC would file its own taxes and be able to record the income against the losses (i.e. interest payments and other operating expenses.). This is can be beneficial depening on your current tax situation. I would definitely recommend the use of a tax accountant at that point. You need to be sure you can really afford this property in the worst case scenario and think about market leasing assumption, property taxes, maintenance and management (especially if you've moved to another state.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c85b3b1d6b3408c34933fabb60592ed0", "text": "Yes, it is safe, we have been doing it for years. We prefer our tenants to make their rent payments in this manner. In fact, we prefer that they set up an automatic payment for the rent, either through their online banking or through their bank directly. Apart from getting your rent on time, this method also has the added benefit of both parties having their own records of rent payments through their bank statements, in case there is a dispute about the rent sometime down the track. Having a separate bank account just for the rent does make sense as well, it makes it easier for you to check if rent has come in, it makes it easier if you need to compare your statement without having to highlight all the rent payments amongst all other payments (you might not want to show your other incomes and spending habits to others), and you can withdraw the rents to your other account (which might offer higher interest) after it has come in, leaving a small balance most of the time in your rent account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0a4f30fe175ac4fea44cfdb318900d9", "text": "When buying investment properties there are different levels of passive investment involved. At one end you have those that will buy an investment property and give it to a real estate agent to manage and don't want to think of it again (apart from watching the rent come in every week). At the other end there are those that will do everything themselves including knocking on the door to collect the rent. Where is the best place to be - well somewhere in the middle. The most successful property investors treat their investment properties like a business. They handle the overall management of the properties and then have a team taking care of the day-to-day nitty gritty of the properties. Regarding the brand new or 5 to 10 year old property, you are going to pay a premium for the brand new. A property that is 5 years old will be like new but without the premium. I once bought a unit which was 2 to 3 years old for less than the original buyer bought it at brand new. Also you will still get the majority of the depreciation benefits on a 5 year old property. You also should not expect too much maintenance on a 5 to 10 year old property. Another option you may want to look at is Defence Housing. They are managed by the Department of Defence and you can be guaranteed rent for 10 years or more, whether they have a tenant in the property or not. They also carry out all the maintenance on the property and restore it to original condition once their contract is over. The pitfall is that you will pay a lot more for the management of these properties (up to 15% or more). Personally, I would not go for a Defence Housing property as I consider the fees too high and would not agree with some of their terms and conditions. However, considering your emphasis on a passive investment, this may be an option for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52d2669e7b9531556d89fd5c4944a25b", "text": "\"The value of getting into the landlord business -- or any other business -- depends on circumstances at the time. How much will it cost you to buy the property? How much can you reasonably expect to collect in rent? How easy or difficult is it to find a tenant? Etc. I owned a rental property for about ten years and I lost a bundle of money on it. Things people often don't consider when calculating likely rental income are: There will be times when you have no tenant. Someone moves out and you don't always find a new tenant right away. Maintenance. There's always something that the tenant expects you to fix. Tenants aren't likely to take as good a care of the property as someone who owned it would. And while a homeowner might fix little things himself, like a broken light switch or doorknob, the tenant expects the landlord to fix such things. If you live nearby and have the time and ability to do minor maintenance, this may be no big deal. If you have to call a professional, this can get very expensive very quickly. Like for example, I once had a tenant complain that the water heater wasn't working. I called a plumber. He found that the knob on the water heater was set to \"\"low\"\". So he turned it up. He charged me, I think it was $200. I can't really complain about the charge. He had to drive to the property, figure out that that was all the problem was, turn the knob, and then verify that that really solved the problem. Tenants don't always pay the rent on time, or at all. I had several tenants who apparently saw the rent as something optional, to be paid if they had money left over that they couldn't think of anything better to do with. You may get bad tenants who destroy the place. I had one tenant who did $10,000 worth of damage. That include six inches deep of trash all over the house that had to be cleared out, rotting food all over, excrement smeared on walls, holes in the walls, and many things broken. I thought it was disgusting just to have to go in to clean it up, I can't imagine living like that, but whatever. Depending on the laws in your area, it may be very difficult to kick out a bad tenant. In my case, I had to evict two tenants, and it took about three months each time to go through the legal process. On the slip side, the big advantage to owning real estate is that once you pay it off, you own it and can continue to collect rent. And as most currencies in the world are subject to inflation, the rent you can charge will normally go up while your mortgage payments are constant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1db11ee8f2a1f41b9ccf17f03879e65b", "text": "\"NORMALLY, you don't want to buy in a bad neighborhood. The one exception is \"\"gentrification,\"\" that is middle class people are moving in because of a good location (which you seem to have). The other important thing to do is to cover your mortgage. Four \"\"guys\"\" at $500 a month will do for an $1800 mortgage. The nice thing is that you are your own tenant for two years and can watch the place. The downside of the neighborhood may be that you can't rent the place to four \"\"girls\"\" or two girls and two guys even after you leave; it will always have to be \"\"guys.\"\" I'd advise most people to pass. With your financial standing and entrepreneurial background, you might just be able to take this risk, and learn from it for your future dealings if it doesn't pan out. (Donald Trump \"\"cut his teeth\"\" on a slum complex in Cincinnati.) Hear what I (and others) have to say, then do what \"\"feels right,\"\" based on your best judgment, of which you probably have plenty.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7c606e17d41f33ef5ca789b461f6c8b", "text": "(Disclosure - I am a real estate agent, involved with houses to buy/sell, but much activity in rentals) I got a call from a man and his wife looking for an apartment. He introduced itself, described what they were looking for, and then suggested I google his name. He said I'd find that a few weeks back, his house burned to the ground and he had no insurance. He didn't have enough savings to rebuild, and besides needing an apartment, had a building lot to sell. Insurance against theft may not be at the top of your list. Don't keep any cash, and keep your possessions to a minimum. But a house needs insurance for a bank to give you a mortgage. Once paid off, you have no legal obligation, but are playing a dangerous game. You are right, it's an odds game. If the cost of insurance is .5% the house value and the chance of it burning down is 1 in 300 (I made this up) you are simply betting it won't be yours that burns down. Given that for most people, a paid off house is their largest asset, more value that all other savings combined, it's a risk most would prefer not to take. Life insurance is a different matter. A person with no dependents has no need for insurance. For those who are married (or have a loved one), or for parents, insurance is intended to help survivors bridge the gap for that lost income. The 10-20 times income value for insurance is just a recommendation, whose need fades away as one approaches independence. I don't believe in insurance as an investment vehicle, so this answer is talking strictly term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4baef5a14ff7cef472938983fe51ce2e", "text": "More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9440b484bb97504f5e7bf8dfd994246b", "text": "If you can get the health ratios based off of the total sales the tenant does divided by their rent plus nets. I know a quite a few big firms look at that to determine the health of the tenant. Another item would be a surrounding market overview. Occupancy rates, average rent, big clients, future developments. The information on existing competitive properties are easy to find, just type in the name of their property plus the word leasing on the end. To find future development information, the city they submit to has to approve the plans. Some cities have it set up on their website over a Google maps type of link. Edit: spelling Good luck! Edit 2: example of competition link. http://properties.brixmor.com/cre/commercial-real-estate-listings/frisco/texas/preston-ridge/overview/", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78073fba775581c025e7fb35c48e3db3", "text": "I don't know enough about taxes and real-state in the Netherlands to be super helpful in determining whether or not a rental property is a good investment. One thing for certain is that there's some risk in spending everything on a rental property. It's wise to have some buffer, an emergency fund of 3-6 months expenses. If things got dire, you'd still need to live somewhere until your tenant was gone, and you'd want to be able to handle any major repairs that crop up. So, even if it is a good idea to buy a rental property, you should probably wait until doing so doesn't leave you without a healthy buffer. As for owning a rental, you described a scenario where you'd get 6% income on your investment each year if there were zero expenses associated with owning the property. Are there property taxes? Is there a monthly cost to maintain the building the apartment is in? Are rental incomes taxed more heavily than other investment income? Just be aware of the full financial picture before deciding if it's a worthwhile investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ca1b59e45e7dd98ad3c7f6ba8724c30", "text": "They call you because that is their business rules. They want their money, so their system calls you starting on the 5th. Now you have to decide what you should do to stop this. The most obvious is to move the payment date to before the 5th. Yes that does put you at risk if the tenant is late. But since it is only one of the 4 properties you own, it shouldn't be that big of a risk.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.