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
66f016a9a52b2e7042bce8659380f504	Can I lose more on Forex than I deposit?	[ { "docid": "d62e3a39316e279e4ee8a1655d33359f", "text": "\"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "427085ec3144fea0f18f8ce045d8159b", "text": "It's the same as with equities. If you're just buying foreign currencies to hold, you can't lose more than you invest. But if you're buying derivatives (e.g. forward contracts or spread bets), or borrowing to buy on margin, you can certainly lose more than you invest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ddfae851426da2f8a259924a8dc6188", "text": "FX is often purchased with leverage by both retail and wholesale speculators on the assumption daily movements are typically more restrained than a number of other asset classes. When volatility picks up unexpectedly these leveraged accounts can absolutely be wiped out. While these events are relatively rare, one happened as recently as 2016 when the Swiss National Bank unleashed the Swiss Franc from its Euro mooring. You can read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-snb-brokers-idUSKBN0KP1EH20150116", "title": "" }, { "docid": "494d72c2a2f9d9d50116da81823b8b82", "text": "Contrary to what other people said I believe that even without leverage you can lose more that you invest when you short a FX. Why? because the amount it can go down is alwasy limited to zero but it can, potentially, go up without limit. See This question for a mored detailed information.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9c18093cba429319b80d538cd41a3589", "text": "> Theoretically you'd expect the exchange rate to move against you enough to make this a bad investment. Actually, the theoretical and intentional expectation is that the currency with the highest interest rate should appreciate even more. Canada has traditionally offered an interest rate premium over the US specifically to help the strength of its currency and attract capital to stay there. > In reality this doesn't happen Because carry trades/fx have so little margin requirements, and so many speculators on one side of the trade, there is a significant short squeeze risk any time there is a de-risking shock to the economy. Any unwinding impulse, scares other carry trade participants to unwind, and then forces many more to unwind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69ac9022804733592e6acd79726b8624", "text": "You are losing something - interest on your deposit. That money you are giving to the bank is not earning interest so you are losing money considering inflation is eating into it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84b5b8c8ef42cad5494a1aef39fc1fab", "text": "\"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2faa57a75bcfd515df2e8d966c4416e", "text": "In the UK there are spread betting firms (essentially financial bookmakers) that will take large bets 24x7. Plus, interbank forex is open 24x7 anyway. And there are a wide array of futures markets in different jurisdictions. There are plenty of ways to find organizations who are willing to take the opposite position that you do, day or night, provided that you qualify.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "50601f94359f51fc0159db8c6d469f19", "text": "Interactive Brokers advertises the percent of profitable forex accounts for its own customers and for competitors. They say they have 46.9% profitable accounts which is higher than the other brokers listed. It's hard to say exactly how this data was compiled- but I think the main takeaway is that if a broker actually advertises that most accounts lose money, it is probably difficult to make money. It may be better for other securities because forex is considered a very tough market for retail traders to compete in. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Ftrading%2Fpdfhighlights%2FPDF-Forex.php", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37ecbc9531e92ed178dd05f3ac000953", "text": "Swiss Central bank has a floor of 1.20, the reason why I have this pair is that my downside is limited. The actual differential is about 20 bps but im leveraged 50:1, which gives me a fun 10% annualized. I bought in at 1.2002, meaning my max downside on an investment of 20K (gives 1mn of exposure), is 200$ and my potential profit is 2000. Creating a risk to return of 10:1.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f24297fb61becba24d76ac71c8ec800e", "text": "\"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d2e532cb2e72389086f1be14335fde0", "text": "Yes. So? Are you saying that OP was just unlucky because he didn't realize that forex wasn't covered under SIPC? I would agree with that, but then, had he read the terms and conditions and considerable paperwork that he was required to sign, he would've known.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f37da9c64177f790479271443715f132", "text": "\"It is not clear to me why you believe you can lose more than you put in, without margin. It is difficult and the chances are virtually nil. However, I can think of a few ways. Lets say you are an American, and deposit $1000. Now lets say you think the Indian rupee is going to devalue relative to the Euro. So that means you want to go long EURINR. Going long EURINR, without margin, is still different than converting your INRs into Euros. Assume USDINR = 72. Whats actually happening is your broker is taking out a 72,000 rupee loan, and using it to buy Euros, with your $1000 acting as collateral. You will need to pay interest on this loan (about 7% annualized if I remember correctly). You will earn interest on the Euros you hold in the meantime (for simplicity lets say its 1%). The difference between interest you earn and interest you pay is called the cost of carry, or commonly referred to as 'swap'. So your annualized cost of carry is $60 ($10-$70). Lets say you have this position open for 1 year, and the exchange rate doesnt move. Your total equity is $940. Now lets say an asteroid destroys all of Europe, your Euros instantly become worthless. You now must repay the rupee loan to close the trade, the cost of which is $1000 but you only have $940 in your account. You have lost more than you deposited, using \"\"no margin\"\". I would actually say that all buying and selling of currency pairs is inherently using margin, because they all involve a short sale. I do note that depending on your broker, you can convert to another currency. But thats not what forex traders do most of the time.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3207224e410452dea55c68e15e4aaf4", "text": "Whether it's historically stronger or weaker isn't going to have an impact on you; the forex exposure you have is going forward if the exchange rates change you will have missed out on having more or less value by leaving it in a certain currency. (Ignoring fees) Say you exchange €85 for $100, if while you're in the US the Euro gets stronger than it currently is, and the exchange rate changes to €8:$10; then you will lose out on €5 if you try to change it back, and the opposite is true if the euro gets weaker than it currently is you would gain money on exchanging it back. Just look at it as though you're buying dollars like it were a commodity. If the euro gets stronger it buys more dollars and you should've held onto it in euros, if it gets weaker it buys less dollars and you were better off having it in dollars. You would want to use whichever currency you think will be weaker or gain the least against the dollar while you're here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3eb8a9c983ff88ae23bb3a03f78f8179", "text": "Greek bank deposits are backed by the Greek government and by the European Central Bank. So in order to lose money under the insurance limits of 100k euros the ECB would need to fail in which case deposit insurance would be the least of most peoples worries. On the other hand I have no idea how easy or hard it is to get to money from a failed bank in Greece. In the US FDIC insurance will usually have your money available in a couple of days. If there isn't a compelling reason to keep the money in a Greek bank I wouldn't do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2c9c9f9ca946c1c69d9e4d37512428b", "text": "No, it's not a good idea. You started by saying you'd like to invest, but then mentioned something that's not an investment, it's a speculation. Both Forex and CFDs are not really investments. They are a zero sum game where over time, it's a pool of your money, the other trader's money, and the broker, redistributed over time. If you truly wish to invest, you'll read up on the process, understand your own long term goals, and put aside X% (say 5-15) of your monthly income. You should look into investments that are long term, and will fund your retirement 30-40 years hence.", "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": "61cce25bf7d6e1960d57634868b4996f", "text": "\"You've asked eleven different questions here. Therefore, The first thing I'd recommend is this: Don't panic. Seek answers to your questions systematically, one at a time. Search this site (and others) to see if there are answers to some of them. You're in good shape if for no other reason than you're asking these when you're young. Investing and saving are great things to do, but you also have time going for you. I recommend that you use your \"\"other eight hours per day\"\" to build up other income streams. That potentially will get you far more than a 2% deposit. Any investment can be risky or safe. It depends on both your personal context and that of the larger economy. The best answers will come from your own research and from your advisors (since they will be able to see where you are financially, and in life).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbef79be90e2e82d24e6214699fd271e", "text": "No free lunch You cannot receive risk-free interest on more money than you actually put down. The construct you are proposing is called 'Carry Trade', and will yield you the interest-difference in exchange for assuming currency risk. Negative expectation In the long run one would expect the higher-yielding currency to devalue faster, at a rate that exactly negates the difference in interest. Net profit is therefore zero in the long run. Now factor in the premium that a (forex) broker charges, and now you may expect losses the size of which depends on the leverage chosen. If there was any way that this could reliably produce a profit even without friction (i.e. roll-over, transaction costs, spread), quants would have already arbitraged it away. Intransparancy Additionaly, in my experience true long-term roll-over costs in relation to interest are a lot harder to compute than, for example, the cost of a stock transaction. This makes the whole deal very intransparant. As to the idea of artificially constructing a USD/USD pair: I regret to tell you that such a construct is not possible. For further info, see this question on Carry Trade: Why does Currency Carry Trade work?", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8e1caf9e57e830a09ab0d0a98df96278	What should I consider when selecting a broker/advisor to manage my IRA?	[ { "docid": "80a32d2885545261ad2faffcd6d0c8e6", "text": "\"This is not a direct answer to your question, but you might want to consider whether you want to have a financial planner at all. Would a large mutual fund company or brokerage serve your needs better than a bank? You are still quite young and so have been contributing to IRAs for only a few years. Also, the wording in your question suggests that your IRA investments have not done spectacularly well, and so it is reasonable to infer that your IRA is not a large amount, or at least not as large as what it would be 30 years from now. At this level of investment, it would be difficult for you to find a financial planner who spends all that much time looking after your interests. That you should get away from your current planner, presumably a mid-level employee in what is typically called the trust division of the bank, is a given. But, to go to another bank (or even to a different employee in the same bank), where you will also likely be nudged towards investing your IRA in CDs, annuities, and a few mutual funds with substantial sales charges and substantial annual expense fees, might just take you from the frying pan into the fire. You might want to consider transferring your IRA to a large mutual fund company and investing it in something simple like one of their low-cost (meaning small annual expense ratio) index funds. The Couch Potato portfolio suggests equal amounts invested in a no-load S&P 500 Index fund and a no-load Bond Index fund, or a 75%-25% split favoring the stock index fund (in view of your age and the fact that the IRA should be a long-term investment). But the point is, you can open an IRA account, have the money transferred from your IRA account with the bank, and make the investments on-line all by yourself instead of having a financial advisor do it on your behalf and charge you a fee for doing so (not to mention possibly screwing it up.) You can set up Automated Investment too; the mutual fund company will gladly withdraw money from your checking account and invest it in whatever fund(s) you choose. All this is not complicated at all. If you would like to follow the Couch Potato strategy and rebalance your portfolio once a year, you can do it by yourself too. If you want to invest in funds other than the S&P 500 Index fund, etc. most mutual fund companies offer a \"\"portfolio analysis\"\" and advice for a fee (and the fee is usually waived when the assets increase above certain levels - varies from company to company). You could thus have a portfolio analysis done each year, and hopefully it will be free after a few more years. Indeed, at that level, you also typically get one person assigned as your advisor, just as you have with a bank. Once you get the recommendations, you can choose to follow them or not, but you have control over how and where your IRA assets are invested. Over the years, as your IRA assets grow, you can branch out into investments other than \"\"staid\"\" index funds, but right now, having a financial planner for your IRA might not be worth it. Later, when you have more assets, by all means if you want to explore investing in specific stocks with a brokerage instead of sticking to mutual funds only but this might also mean phone calls urging you to sell Stock A right now, or buy hot Stock B today etc. So, one way of improving your interactions and have a better experience with your new financial planner is to not have a planner at all for a few years and do some of the work yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90fead46e9d8314e5f383a09a89b73e6", "text": "I've not gotten an answer so far. Since I've started my search for a new financial planner here are the criteria I am using:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "81a6ee7d7f7b8ef9e63c33641f686053", "text": "A broker does not have to allow the full trading suite the regulations permit. From brokersXpress: Do you allow equity and index options trading in brokersXpress IRAs? Yes, we allow trading of equity and index options in IRAs based on the trading level assigned to an investor. Trading in IRAs includes call buying, put buying, cash-secured put writing, spreads, and covered calls. I understand OptionsXpress.com offers the same level of trading. Disclosure - I have a Schwab account and am limited in what's permitted just as your broker does. The trade you want is no more risky that a limit (buy) order, only someone is paying you to extend that order for a fixed time. The real answer is to ask the broker. If you really want that level of trading, you might want to change to one that permits it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "891f132c447cb95d82b662ce8df7dbd4", "text": "I haven't seen anyone mention tax considerations and that's why I'm answering this. The rest of my answer is probably covered in the aggregate of other responses. Here's how I would look at this in a taxable (not an IRA) account: This could be an opportunity to harvest the tax losses to offset taxable gains this year or in future years. Unless I have compelling reasons to believe that the price will recover by at least (Loss% x ApplicableTaxRate) in the next 31 days then I would take the known - IRS tables - opportunities over the unknown. Here's what I would consider for all accounts: Is this the most likely place to earn a good return on my money and is it contributing to a strategy that fits my risk tolerance? You might need to get some emotional distance from the pain to make this determination objectively. As you consider your trading and investment strategy going forward consider that when it hurts and you have to pull yourself up by the bootstraps to think clearly about your situation, you were most likely trading with too much size for you in that particular position. I'm willing to make exceptions to that rule of thumb, but it's a good way to use the painful losses as a gut check on how your strategy fits your real situation. P.S. All traders experience individual losses that hurt and find their way to the most suitable strategies for them through these painful experiences.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5aef11d085a3dd22f8ef4a9e831aea5", "text": "\"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6302399f615b121a3add9a0f0edf061", "text": "\"There are several types of financial advisors. Some are associated with brokerages and insurance companies and the like. Their services are often free. On the other hand, the advice they give you will generally be strongly biased toward their own company's products, and may be biased toward their own profits rather than your gains. (Remember, anything free is being paid for by someone, and if you don't know who it's generally going to be you.) There are some who are good, but I couldn't give you any advice on finding them. Others are not associated with any of the above, and serve entirely as experts who can suggest ways of distributing your money based on your own needs versus resources versus risk-tolerance, without any affiliation to any particular company. Consulting these folks does cost you (or, if it's offered as a benefit, your employer) some money, but their fiduciary responsibility is clearly to you rather than to someone else. They aren't likely to suggest you try anything very sexy, but when it comes to your primary long-term savings \"\"exciting\"\" is usually not a good thing. The folks I spoke to were of the latter type. They looked at my savings and my plans, talked to me about my risk tolerance and my goals, picked a fairly \"\"standard\"\" strategy from their files, ran simulations against it to sanity-check it, and gave me a suggested mix of low-overhead index fund types that takes almost zero effort to maintain (rebalance occasionally between funds), has acceptable levels of risk, and (I admit I've been lucky) has been delivering more than acceptable returns. Nothing exciting, but even though I'm relatively risk-tolerant I'd say excitement is the last thing I need in my long-term savings. I should actually talk to them again some time soon to sanity-check a few things; they can also offer advice on other financial decisions (whether/when I might want to talk to charities about gift annuity plans, whether Roth versus traditional 401(k) makes any difference at all at this point in my career, and so on).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "286f3c2c2f1e29bc738069cc7684932a", "text": "\"There are a lot of unintended consequences of fairly arbitrary IRS guidelines when it comes to 401Ks, they both close and create tons of loopholes and many companies are left to implement their own policy around these laws. Ultimately what you are left with are a lot of random things, interpreted differently by every single company in the country, that aren't directly codified by the IRS or Congress. If you have a choice regarding what brokerage firm manages your 401(k), then just call around. Be sure to ask the pencil pusher on the phone to double check because they might say \"\"OF COURSE you can get paperless statements it is 2015\"\" but then when you sign up it becomes \"\"ooohhh sorry due to recent guidelines this kind of account isn't eligible for paperless statements\"\"\"", "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": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73", "text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7bb9875419bcac783606f089868f84c", "text": "\"Whoa. These things are on two dimensions. It's like burger and fries, you can also have chicken sandwich and fries, or burger and onion rings. You can invest in an taxable brokerage account and/or an IRA. And then, within each of those... You can buy index funds and/or anything else. All 4 combinations are possible. If someone says otherwise, take your money and run. They are a shady financial \"\"advisor\"\" who is ripping you off by steering you only into products where they get a commission. Those products are more expensive because the commission comes out of your end. Not to mention any names. E.J. If you want financial advice that is honest, find a financial advisor who you pay for his advice, and who doesn't sell products at all. Or, just ask here. But I would start by listening to Suze Orman, Dave Ramsey, whomever you prefer. And read John Bogle's book. They can tell you all about the difference between money market, bonds, stocks, managed mutual funds (ripoff!) and index funds. IRA accounts, Roth IRA accounts and taxable accounts are all brokerage accounts. Within them, you can buy any security you want, including index funds. The difference is taxation. Suppose you earn $1000 and choose to invest it however Later you withdraw it and it has grown to $3000. Investing in a taxable account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you later withdraw the $3000, you pay a tax on $2000 of income. If you invested more than a year, it is taxed at a much lower \"\"capital gains\"\" tax rate. With a traditional IRA account, you pay zero taxes on the initial $1000. Later, when you take the money out, you pay normal income tax on the full $3000. If you withdrew it before age 59-1/2, you also pay a 10% penalty ($300). With a Roth IRA account, you pay normal income tax on the $1000. When you withdraw the $3000 later, you pay NOTHING in taxes. Provided you followed the rules. You can invest in almost anything inside these accounts: Money market funds. Terrible return. You won't keep up with the market. Bonds. Low return but usually quite safe. Individual stocks. Good luck. Managed mutual funds. You're paying some genius stock picker to select high performing stocks. He has a huge staff of researchers and good social connections. He also charges you 1.5% per year overhead as an \"\"expense ratio\"\", which is a total loss to you. The fact is, he can usually pick stocks better than a monkey throwing darts. But he's not 1.5% better! Index funds. These just shrug and buy every stock on the market. There's no huge staff or genius manager, just some intern making small adjustments every week. As such, the expense ratio is extremely small, like 0.1%. If any of these investments pay dividends, you must pay taxes on them when they're issued, if you're not in an IRA account. This problem gets fixed in ETF's. Index ETF's. These are index funds packaged to behave like stocks. Dividends increase your stock's value instead of being paid out to you, which simplifies your taxes. If you buy index funds outside of an IRA, use these. Too many other options to get into here.\"", "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": "fa5cda63f0371b7e26d0aac5e8eb51be", "text": "Too little information to give any kind of advice. What is your age, goals, other monies, other investments etc... You need to look at the whole thing. Are you investing already in tax-deferred IRA. Spend the time to learn to be your own investment advisor. Many investment professionals may disagree with me on this, but since you can't trust many of them better you do your own research first. Same with Stocks or ETF, you try to be the expert. Better you have the time to follow your own investments ideas, do not depend on a human or robot to tell you when to buy or sell. Their job is to part you from your money. If you do not have the time to this yourself, save yourself the money, and just do something else with it. I have been investing in the Stock Market since 1986, I have made more money than I lost. Good runs and bad. Today it is all about trading, you can not trust the financials given by anyone, or know what is going to happen in the markets in general. So unless you want to play the game every day, don't be in it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7", "text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "244ed47688f083ee95343e070368ec21", "text": "Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "351446dcbdc3994c898077f317fdcd20", "text": "I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "421ea4a568804f3e64424e2e49d631bf", "text": "Maxing out an IRA would probably be step 1, if you exceed that probably just aim for saving in a taxable brokerage account. Just try and stick to ETFs if you're gonna index since they're slightly more tax efficient than a mutual fund", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b806671cb1b52fd455e729cbb9e107", "text": "The nature of this question (finding a financial adviser) can make it a conundrum. Those who have little financial experience are often in the greatest need of a financial adviser and at the same time are the least qualified to select one. I'm not putting you or anyone in particular in this category. And of course it's a sliding scale: In general the more capable you are of running your own finances the more prepared you are to answer this question. With that said, I would recommend backing up half a step. Consider advisers other than strictly fee-only advisers. Perhaps you have already considered this decision. But perhaps others reading this have not. My (Ameriprise) adviser charges a monthly (~$50) fee, but also gets percentage-based portions of certain investments. Based on a $150/hr rate that amounts to four hours per year. Does he spend four hours per year on my account? Well so far he does (~2 yrs). But that is determined primarily by how much interaction I choose to have with him. (I suppose I could spend more time asking him questions and less time on this forum. :P) I have never fully understood the gravitation towards fee-based advisers on principle. I guess the theory is they are not making biased decisions about your investments because they don't have as much of a stake in how well your investments to do. I don't necessarily see that as an advantage. It seems they would have less of an incentive to ensure the growth of your investments. Although if you're nearing retirement then growth isn't your biggest concern. Perhaps a fee-based adviser makes more sense in that scenario. Whatever pay structure your adviser uses, it would seem to make sense to consider a successful adviser with a good client base. This implies that the adviser knows what he/she is doing. (But it could also just be a sign that they are good at marketing themselves.) If your adviser has a good base of wealthy clients then choosing a strictly-fee based adviser would mitigate the risk of your adviser having less incentive to consider your portfolio vs that of more wealthy clients. To more directly answer your question I suggest asking several of your adviser candidates for advice on choosing an adviser. I suspect you will get some good advice as well as good insight on the integrity and honesty of the adviser.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8f8658ddfa51a4cdc5ed8a90fc06f932	My employer is switching 401k plan providers. How might this work in practice?	[ { "docid": "a65341f62347b016316e7274f54f565e", "text": "Having gone though this type of event a few times it won't be a problem. On a specific date they will freeze your accounts. Then they will transfer the funds from custodian X to custodian Y. It should only take a day or two, and they will work it around the paydays so that by the time the next paycheck is released everything is established in the new custodian. Long before the switch over they will announce the investment options in the new company. They will provide descriptions of the options, and a default mapping: S&P 500 old company to S&P 500 new company, International fund old company to international fund new company... If you do nothing then on the switchover they will execute the mapped switches. If you want to take this an an opportunity to rebalance, you can make the changes to the funds you invest in prior to the switch or after the switch. How you contributions are invested will follow the same mapping rules, but the percentage of income won't change. Again you can change how you want to invest your contributions or matching funds by altering the contribution forms, but if you don't do anything they will just follow the mapping procedures they have defined. Loans terms shouldn't change. Company stock will not be impacted. The only hiccup that I would worry about is if the old custodian had a way for you to transfer funds into any fund in their family, or to purchase any individual stock. The question would be does the new custodian have the same options. If you have more questions ask HR or look on the company benefits website. All your funds will be moved to the new company, and none of these transfers will be a taxable event. Edit February 2014: based on this question: What are the laws or rules on 401(k) loans and switching providers? I reviewed the documents for the most recent change (February 2014). The documents from the employer and the new 401K company say: there are no changes to the loan balances, terms, and payment amounts. Although there is a 2 week window when no new loans can be created. All employees received notice 60 days prior to the switchover regarding new investments options, blackout periods.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eeae5680b6112fa7da9809bac1a271d0", "text": "\"A few years ago our company switched from Fidelity to a different 401k provider. During the blackout transition, nearly every employee lost a considerable amount of money. The \"\"Trustee\"\" advised us that during the blackout he had a right to invest the funds and that the investments lost money.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54c8b95482efb17d27bb5df4bdffc267", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85654a54b7da167360ce6be36e5cf8bd", "text": "\"You should call your plan administrator and ask. Few plans allow people to take a \"\"hardship withdraw\"\" after leaving because their is no way to pay the funds back since you are no longer working there. The repayment process is done via payroll deduction usually. Also you will most likely be required to withhold 20% for taxes from the 401k. There is no way to defer the taxation unless you take it next calendar year. You may want to consider doing a rollover into an IRA and taking the w/d and you can do a 60 day rollover. You only get 1 per rolling 12 months now (rather than account do to a change in the rule.) IRA's (not 401k) do give you flexible withholding so you don't have to pay taxes today though they would still be in the tax year based on the calendar date taken out, so if you take it out in 2015 your going to be paying them at the end of this year when you file in April of 2016. Your question seems to be mixing characteristics of both 401k and IRA and while they are similar they do operate very differently.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "232e578503b1027f16e365fd142129f7", "text": "The amount you contribute will reduce the taxable income for each paycheck, but it won't impact the level of your social security and medicare taxes. A 401(k) plan is a qualified deferred compensation plan in which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of his or her cash wages to the plan on a pretax basis. Generally, these deferred wages (commonly referred to as elective contributions) are not subject to income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected on your Form 1040 (PDF) since they were not included in the taxable wages on your Form W-2 (PDF). However, they are included as wages subject to withholding for social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, employers must report the elective contributions as wages subject to federal unemployment taxes. You might be able to keep this up for more than 7 weeks if the company offers health, dental and vision insurance. Your contributions for these policies would need to be paid for before you contribute to the 401K. Of course these items are also pre-tax so they will keep the taxable amount at zero. If there was a non-pretax deduction on your pay check that would keep the check at zero, but there would be taxes owed. This might be union dues, but it can also be some life and disability insurance polices. Most stubs specify which deductions are pre-tax, and which are post-tax. Warning. If you get the company match some companies give you the maximum match for those 7 weeks, then zero for the rest of the year. Others will still credit you with a match at the end of the year saying if you should get the benefit. It is not required that they do this. Check the company documents. You could also contribute post-tax money, which is different than Roth 401K, for the rest of the year to keep the match going. Note: If you are turning 50 this year, or are already 50, then you can contribute an additional $5,500", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c3c0944e9e65e420b692ee0e47cded0d", "text": "As others have pointed out, post-tax dollars are what you'll use. Just as a quick note, as you'll be using post-tax dollars; in the past, I've refused to take contractor plans because they almost always are inferior to what I've been able to get off the private exchange ehealthinsurance. A few people have written excellent articles on Get Rich Slowly here and here about them in detail if you want more information. Generally, contractors (and sometimes employees) are offered a few plans (3-4), and this health exchange gives you a little more freedom to pick your plan, which in your situation may help. It isn't always cheaper, but depending on your needs, you may obtain a better deal. Forgot to add this: this option has also made switching jobs easy as well since I don't have to pay COBRA. While it depends on the situation, this can sometimes come out significantly cheaper. For instance, if I were to take the employer health plan next year, I would lose ~$450 a month, whereas the private exchange option is ~$300. But, if I were to switch jobs, decide to opt for self-employment, or a layoff, the COBRA would be even higher than ~$450.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "577d17a91d08a46f7c4dc389251b2675", "text": "This creates incentive for the employee to contribute more and increases the funds under management of the 401(k) plan. The size of the plan influences the fees that are charged in each of the funds offered. (The more assets under management, the better for those in the plan.) More importantly, 401(k) plans are not allowed to discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees. That discrimination is determined by calculating the average deferrals by your lower compensated employees and comparing them to the average deferrals of your highly compensated employees. If highly compensated employees are saving too much compared to the rest of the pack, they will have some of their contributions returned the next year (with all the tax implications of that). Forcing everyone to contribute 6% to get the full match helps the plan to not fail the discrimination test and protects the highly compensated employees from losing some of their tax deferrals.", "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": "13d3ff4d6b707032209f25ea78e8e020", "text": "Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e32eb3044899febf97d41eb6b0bd7dd", "text": "The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e0f4949caa285e9a88aed4baa6e1ff8", "text": "One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fafadcfd9f83fb1d1779e89d4919ee50", "text": "Actually the Fidelity hypothetical example (with same marginal tax rates) is super misleading. They are putting the money saved up front from the traditional 401k in to at taxable account. Why? If you put the actual money used for the Roth that would be saved into traditional 401k they look the same no matter the timeline (with a hypothetical unchanging tax rate). Check this out. So there are only two things to consider when choosing traditional vs roth.", "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": "7175b75413cf350d7771fb6bcdc4ad2a", "text": "A few years ago I had been contributing with my employer to a 401(k). When I then moved abroad, I found it difficult to stay in touch with my 401(k). The toll-free numbers I had used inside the US, to contact the plan administrators, did not work from overseas.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f885b68f32e2453231622ed12ef0a48", "text": "Your employer decides what options you have in the 401k. You can talk to your HR about that. There are requirements for diversity of various types of investments, money-market funds is being one of them. That is the investment account equivalent of cash. While it is not really cash but rather short term bonds - the term is generally very short and the risk is very limited. You can't earn much there, and you can't lose much there - so for all intents and purposes you can treat is as a cash-equivalent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63426e878f9a945b9145edaea4edcbe6", "text": "What makes you think anything would change? If they allowed Match money to be distributed tax free, they are missing out on a future tax revenue opportunity. I think the more likely way they would stick it to us is to sunset the Roth 401(k) all together and make plans go back to the old school pre-tax and after-tax only, where even the earnings on after-tax are taxed at distribution.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
2a9cb36934e125b436c5f56317dd6000	Pros and cons of investing in a cheaper vs expensive index funds that track the same index	[ { "docid": "03d41dcf56859ae93fbc012bda231e5a", "text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "119a6b3a616e6ba5f32ab33c55c6b746", "text": "So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2dd086331cf0440e90e56718588717d", "text": "Cheaper would refer to the fees of a fund rather than the share price, IMO. Are 2 quarters worth more or less than 10 nickels? This is another way to express your question though most open-end funds bought directly from the fund family or through fund supermarkets would do fractional shares that may be better than going through ETFs though there can be some brokers like Sharebuilder that used to do fractional shares though not necessarily having the best execution as I recall.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "80ccc6f1c6b0f9d238426febd4303db4", "text": "\"Generally investing in index-tracking funds in the long term poses relatively low risk (compared to \"\"short term investment\"\", aka speculation). No-one says differently. However, it is a higher risk than money-market/savings/bonds. The reason for that is that the return is not guaranteed and loss is not limited. Here volatility plays part, as well as general market conditions (although the volatility risk also affects bonds at some level as well). While long term trend may be upwards, short term trend may be significantly different. Take as an example year 2008 for S&P500. If, by any chance, you needed to liquidate your investment in November 2008 after investing in November 1998 - you might have ended up with 0 gain (or even loss). Had you waited just another year (or liquidated a year earlier) - the result would be significantly different. That's the volatility risk. You don't invest indefinitely, even when you invest long term. At some point you'll have to liquidate your investment. Higher volatility means that there's a higher chance of downward spike just at that point of time killing your gains, even if the general trend over the period around that point of time was upward (as it was for S&P500, for example, for the period 1998-2014, with the significant downward spikes in 2003 and 2008). If you invest in major indexes, these kinds of risks are hard to avoid (as they're all tied together). So you need to diversify between different kinds of investments (bonds vs stocks, as the books \"\"parrot\"\"), and/or different markets (not only US, but also foreign).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72fc81b3b8029581818dc18f64cc52af", "text": "Index funds, like IBB, generally lack active management, which equates to lower expenses. This is simply because the target index, the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index in the case of IBB, is composed of known quantities. This means there won't be stock pickers or analysts constantly swapping holdings, increasing the turnover rate of the portfolio and increasing capital gains; costs that are offset by higher expense ratios in more actively managed funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ba51d2d9ec2c4cf2b1e53d4321ceaf5", "text": "\"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08d5925d71bac21221c3b6a39b518ede", "text": "There is a difference between trading which is short term focussed and investing which is longterm focussed. On the long term what drives stock prices is still the overall economy and the performance of the underlying business aspects. I do not think that any trading algorithms will change this. These are more concerned with short term profits regardless of the underlying business economics. Therefore I think that longterm investing using index funds is still a viable strategy for most private investors.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5f54af20589d8b843e3019749c8be70", "text": "Theoretically, it could be daily, but depending upon the number of companies in the index, it could be anywhere between daily or once a month or so. Apart from that, there is a periodic index review that happens once every quarter. The methodology for each index is also different, and you need to be aware of it (we had positions on literally hundreds of indices, and I knew the methodology of almost each of them). If you have say, 2 billion dollars tracking a certain index, even a miniscule change in the composition would be substantial for you. But for certain others, you may just need to buy and sell $10k worth of stocks, and we would not even bother.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3e298b53b9b41e2e4144ca203408ea8", "text": "\"The value will certainly fluctuate up and down (but on average gain more than a savings account), but so long as you have enough liquid assets for emergencies, then yes, it's a perfectly good alternative to savings accounts. how risky, in general, are Index Income Funds. How are you defining \"\"risk\"\"? If you mean \"\"probability that I'll lose it all\"\" then it's virtually zero. If you mean \"\"how much the value can fluctuate\"\" then it's certainly not risk-free, but it has less volatility that individual stocks. If you take the S&P 500 as a proxy, you might expect the change in value over any given year to fluctuate between -30% (like 2008) and +40%, with an average change of around 8%. There will be funds that have less volatility, but produce less return, and funds that have more volatility but higher average returns.\"", "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": "d9e1eabed9baab993878f36c4cd990f2", "text": "It's very simple. The low cost index funds are generally the best investments for investors, but - because of the low fees and the fact that the offerings of different companies are nearly identical - they are the worst for the investment houses. Therefore, the investment houses spend a lot of money convincing investors to choose other funds. If you remember that investment houses are all in the business of making money for themselves, not for the investor, then the whole financial system will make much more sense.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "745af972c291ab920e3b2690a6d0ef9d", "text": "Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "667f5ee83a6fccf6901ac2c01fee122a", "text": "I see a couple of reasons why you could consider choosing a mutual fund over an ETF In some cases index mutual funds can be a cheaper alternative to ETFs. In the UK where I am based, Fidelity is offering a management fee of 0.07% on its FTSE All shares tracker. Last time I checked, no ETF was beating that There are quite a few cost you have to foot when dealing ETFs In some cases, when dealing for relatively small amounts (e.g. a monthly investment plan) you can get a better deal, if your broker has negotiated discounts for you with a fund provider. My broker asks £12.5 when dealing in shares (£1.5 for the regular investment plan) whereas he asks £0 when dealing in funds and I get a 100% discount on the initial charge of the fund. As a conclusion, I would suggest you look at the all-in costs over total investment period you are considering for the exact amount you are planning to invest. Despite all the hype, ETFs are not always the cheapest alternative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc7049dedd2b6a9084368e230498afc2", "text": "\"Simply put, you cannot deterministically beat the market. If by being informed and following all relevant news, you can arrive at the conclusion that company A will likely outperform company B in the future, then having A stocks should be better than having B stocks or any (e.g., index based) mix of them. But as the whole market has access to the very same information and will arrive at the same conclusion (provided it is logically sound), \"\"everybody\"\" will want A stocks, which thus become expensive to the point where the expected return is average again. Your only options of winning this race are to be the very first to have the important information (insider trade), or to arrive at different logical conclusions than the rest of the world (which boils down do making decisions that are not logically sound - good luck with that - or assuming that almost everybody else is not logically sound - go figure).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d50559be065fadfef22499cb91fe9e9", "text": "By definition, actively managed funds will underperform passive index funds as a whole. Or more specifically: The aggregate performance of all actively managed portfolio of publicly-tradable assets will have equal performance to those of passively managed portfolios. Which taken with premise two: Actively managed funds will charge higher fees than passively managed funds Results in: In general, lower-fee investment vehicles (e.g. passive index investments) with broad enough diversification to the desired risk exposure will outperform higher-fee options But don't take my wonkish approach, from a more practical perspective consider:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "972cada0712bdb15c5249e2fca6cd7a2", "text": "Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars. The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole. The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "061130687d0b940610014d45e7bf4007", "text": "If the index goes up every single day during your investment, you would indeed be better off with 2x ETFs, assuming no tracking errors. However, this is basically never the case. Indexes fluctuate up and down. And the problem is, with these sorts of ETFs, you double your win on the upside but your downside is more than double. If an index goes up 10% one day and down 10% the next, you lose 1% of the value of your investment (1.1 * 0.9). If you are using 2x ETFs, you lose 4% of the value of your investment (1.2 * 0.8), not 2%. If you are using 3x ETFs, you lose 9% of the value of your investment (1.3 * 0.7), not 3%. So, if the index will continue to rise during your holding period, yes, you are better off with these 2x or 3x ETFs. If the index falls on some days, but rises most other days, the added downside is all but certain to make you lose money even though the stock trends upward. That's why these ETFs are designed for single-day bets. Over the long-term, the volatility of the stock market, combined with your exponentially increased downside, guarantees you will lose money.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
a40a825f6ef29e24ccd173ab9fd14c30	Are there limits on frequency of withdrawal from Roth 401K?	[ { "docid": "52ac5428aefb5e55a7576108668702e0", "text": "Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "030a0714c9b60c9f7f3d8a5bf0dc6cd0", "text": "On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ebe24fce6b9e462d3ea320581e632e0", "text": "Deposits are contributions. You deposit say, $5000, and over time you have $6000. The $5000 can be withdrawn any time with no issue. It's tracked via form 8606. With this in mind, I wrote an article The Roth Emergency Fund, suggesting that since one can withdraw deposits with no issue, the Roth can be used to hold emergency money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aa16b8a07ae8ff46fd91f3e373b6fd0", "text": "The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9260b267d593f6be555fafa6752bc74e", "text": "Part of the difficulty in this sort of planning is that you are also betting on future tax rates and comparing them with current taxes. If you are in a low tax bracket now, but expect to be in a higher one when you take the money out, it is better to pay the taxes now. If you are in a high tax bracket now, but expect to be in a lower one when you retire/take the money out, then it is better to defer the taxes until then. If you think that future sessions of Congress will decide to tax withdrawals from Roth accounts, then you should contribute to traditional accounts. The problem is that you don't know with certainty what the future will bring. So you have to make educated guesses about what might happen, and what you can do now to protect yourself from it. Ideally, plan so that even if the bad things happen, you will be reasonably comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30a055c3759abd566bb7d3845ec0a3f4", "text": "There are 3 options (option 2 may not be available to you) When you invest 18,000 in a Traditional 401k, you don't pay taxes on the 18k the year you invest, but you pay taxes as you withdraw. There's a Required Minimum Distribution required after age 70. If your income is low enough, you won't pay taxes on your withdrawals. Otherwise, you pay as if it is income. However, you don't pay payroll tax (Social Security / Medicare) on the withdrawals. You pay no tax until you withdraw. When you invest 18,000 in a Roth 401k, you pay income tax on the 18,000 in the year it's invested, but you pay nothing after that. When you invest 18,000 in a taxable investment account, you pay income tax on that 18,000 in the year it's invested, you pay tax on dividends (even if they're re-invested), and then you pay capital gains tax when you withdraw. But remember, tax rules and tax rates are only good so long as Congress doesn't change the applicable laws.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd85b373ebfb5d77342806f310579e72", "text": "Your math is fine, except employers might not permit the withdrawal. You'd have to go back to their rules or contact HR to understand the withdrawals permitted.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e103bd66c127a2a3b1012b8e9ebd8066", "text": "Mostly true. Very few plans allow for in-service withdrawal options. In most cases plans that do, only allow pure after tax sources to be withdrawn prior to age 59.5. The other case would be if you had rolled money from another k plan into your current plan. In almost all plans that money is always accessible. Otherwise you generally will have to wait to request a distribution until you turn 59.5 years of age.", "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": "5525b9a5a45b8b4565fe706e8db400af", "text": "No, you cannot. If you withdraw everything from all your Roth IRA's and end up with less than the total basis - you can deduct the difference on your schedule A (at the time of the last withdrawal) as an itemized deduction (as misc. deductions with 2% AGI cap). Regular IRA's are pre-tax, you cannot deduct anything from them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53c2ad9c8f90728d1022f7bb540e025a", "text": "You may withdraw your contributions to a Roth IRA at any time for any reason without penalty. Any gains you withdraw may be subject to tax or penalties though, but there is a $10,000 exclusion (from the 10% penalty, not the taxes) for a first time home purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85eed373cbfd14f5a324acb313034617", "text": "\"Yes you can do the withdraw if you turned 55 during the year you separated from service. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k_education/Early_Dist_Options.html#.VdMrqPlVhBc Leaving Your Job On or After Age 55 The age 59½ distribution rule says any 401k participant may begin to withdraw money from his or her plan after reaching the age of 59½ without having to pay a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. There is an exception to that rule, however, which allows an employee who retires, quits or is fired at age 55 to withdraw without penalty from their 401k (the \"\"rule of 55\"\"). There are three key points early retirees need to know. First, this exception applies if you leave your job at any time during the calendar year in which you turn 55, or later, according to IRS Publication 575. Second, if you still have money in the plan of a former employer and assuming you weren't at least age 55 when you left that employer, you'll have to wait until age 59½ to start taking withdrawals without penalty. Better yet, get any old 401k's rolled into your current 401k before you retire from your current job so that you will have access to these funds penalty free. Third, this exception only applies to funds withdrawn from a 401k. IRAs operate until different rules, so if you retire and roll money into an IRA from your 401k before age 59½, you will lose this exception on those dollars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "058718c4ba38b0df9089d96f290571b4", "text": "If you do not need the money in the 401k right away and are interested in avoiding penalties on the amounts accumulated, roll over the 401k monies into a Roth IRA (your contributions and growth thereof) and a Traditional IRA (company match a d growth thereof). You can choose to take out money from the Traditional IRA not as a lump sum (penalties in addition to lots of income tax in the year of taking the distribution) but as series of equal payments over your life expectancy (no penalty but US income tax is still due each year). Be aware that he who rides a tiger cannot dismount: if you opt for this method, you must take a distribution every year whether you need the money or not, and the amount of the distribution must match what the IRS wants you to take exactly; excess withdrawals lead to penalties etc. Publication 590 says Annuity. You can receive distributions from your traditional IRA that are part of a series of substantially equal payments over your life (or your life expectancy), or over the lives (or the joint life expectancies) of you and your beneficiary, without having to pay the 10% additional tax, even if you receive such distributions before you are age 59.5. You must use an IRS-approved distribution method and you must take at least one distribution annually for this exception to apply. The “required minimum distribution method,” when used for this purpose, results in the exact amount required to be distributed, not the minimum amount. Be aware that, depending on your country of residence/citizenship, you may be required to close all foreign accounts within x months of return, and if so, this stratagem will not work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7735af6c3dcf074d3b190b7cf6b295b6", "text": "You may withdraw penalty-free from a 401(k) if you separate from service at 55 or later. This may make the rolling to any IRA not a good idea. You can withdraw penalty free if you are disabled. You can withdraw penalty free if you take the withdrawal using a process called Section 72t which basically means a steady withdrawal for either 5 years or until age 59-1/2 whichever is second. Aside from these exceptions, the concept is to be allowed to take withdrawals after 59-1/2, but you must start to take withdrawals starting at 70-1/2. These are called RMDs (required minimum distributions) and represent a small fraction of the account, 1/27.4 at 70, 1/18.7 at 80, 1/11.4 at 90. Each year, you take a minimum of this fraction of the account value and pay the tax. If you had a million dollars, your first withdrawal would be $36,496, you'd be in the 15% marginal rate with this income. In general, it's always a good idea to be aware of your marginal tax rate. For example, a married filing joint couple would be in the 15% bracket up to a taxable $74,900 in 2015. At withdrawal time, and as the year moves along, if they are on track to have a taxable $64,900 (for example), it would be wise to take the extra $10,000, either as a withdrawal to put aside for the next year, or as a Roth conversion. This way, as the RMDs increase, they have a reduced chance to push the couple to the next tax bracket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e134c8e2dc970331adafc60acda2ed44", "text": "\"Welcome to the 'what should otherwise be a simple choice turns into a huge analysis' debate. If the choice were actually simple, we've have one 'golden answer' here and close others as duplicate. But, new questions continue to bring up different scenarios that impact the choice. 4 years ago, I wrote an article in which I discussed The Density of Your IRA. In that article, I acknowledge that, with no other tax favored savings, you can pack more value into the Roth. In hindsight, I failed to add some key points. First, let's go back to what I'd describe as my main thesis: A retired couple hits the top of the 15% bracket with an income of $96,700. (I include just the standard deduction and exemptions.) The tax on this gross sum is $10,452.50 for an 'average' rate of 10.8%. The tax, paid or avoided, upon deposit, is one's marginal rate. But, at retirement, the withdrawals first go through the zero bracket (i.e. the STD deduction and exemptions), then 10%, then 15%. The above is the simplest snapshot. I am retired, and our return this year included Sch A, itemized deductions. Property tax, mort interest, insurance, donations added up fast, and from a gross income (IRA withdrawal) well into the 25% bracket, the effective/average rate was reported as 7.3%. If we had saved in Roth accounts, it would have been subject to 25%. I'd suggest that it's this phenomenon, the \"\"save at marginal 25%, but withdraw at average sub-11%\"\" effect that account for much of the resulting tax savings that the IRA provides. The way you are asking this, you've been focusing on one aspect, I believe. The 'density' issue. That assumes the investor has no 401(k) option. If I were building a spreadsheet to address this, I'd be sure to consider the fact that in a taxable account, long term gains are taxed at 15% for higher earners (I take the liberty to ignore that wealthier taxpayers will pay a maximum 20% tax on long-term capital gains. This higher rate applies when your adjusted gross income falls into the top 39.6% tax bracket.) And those in the 10 or 15% bracket pay 0%. With median household income at $56K in 2016, and the 15% bracket top at $76K, this suggests that most people (gov data shows $75K is 80th percentile) have an effective unlimited Roth. So long as they invest in a way that avoids short term gains, they can rebalance often enough to realize LT gains and pay zero tax. It's likely the $80K+ earner does have access to a 401(k) or other higher deposit account. If they don't, I'd still favor pretax IRAs, with $11K for the couple still 10% or so of their earnings. It would be a shame to lose that zero bracket of that first $20K withdrawal at retirement. Again working backwards, the $78K withdrawal would take nearly $2M in pretax savings to generate. All in today's dollars.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51457b958268ac8a3d1178be8b471cb0", "text": "The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8763ea00844c4e7c1655137aa42111a7	Possible Risks of Publicizing Personal Stock Portfolio	[ { "docid": "bc2a646dd3614c87720d10818e87a883", "text": "I am considering making my investment history publicly available online What is the benefit you are looking for by doing this? Just to establish that you are a successful investor, so in long run can predict things ... have tons of followers? If so yes. Go ahead. Updates to the portfolio would have to be near real-time than post facto else no one will believe you and it would be useless. are there any reasons (legal, personal, etc.) not to publicize my personal investment history legal, depends on country; I can't think any [check the agreement with your broker / depository] on how much can be displayed. i.e. they may forbid from revealing contract ref / or some other details. On Personal front, it depends who takes a liking to your stuff. Relatives: They know you are making huge profits and may want to borrow stuff ... or queue up to you requesting to make similar huge profits for them; only to realize when there is loss they blame you ... this can strain relationships. Friends: Although close friends may have a general idea, if you are too successful and it shows; it can have its own set of issues to deal with. Colleagues / Manager: If you are too successful, it may mean you may notionally be earning more than them ... they would start unconsciously monitoring your behaviour ... this guy spends all day in office researching for stocks and doesn't work. That way he knows how to pick good stock ... he is wasting company time. The same happens if you are loosing stock ... a unrelated bad day you are having maybe equated to loss in stocks. Depending on the job / roles, they may move you to different role as the perceived risk of you swindling goes up. Generally important work doesn't get assigned, as it would be assumed that if you are successful in investing, you may quite soon and start full time into it. Identify Theft: As mentioned by keshlam, to much data one can easily risk identity theft. Realize phone banking to get some routine stuff just asks for basic details [that are available on face book] and few recent debits / credits to the account. This will be easy see the trades you have done. None of us here are expert identity theifs. But the real one have tons of way t", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cbd9c2e7eca6dff3bce213f61ad49aa", "text": "\"You would be facilitating identity theft. You would be risking people who disagree with your approach thinking you're foolish. Are you really going to gain enough from this decision to offset the risks? Can't you do the same thing with much less detail or a \"\"fantasy\"\" account?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "028df917647481b5d4e19cbb323afd32", "text": "\"I would want a clause that says you can't endanger my portfolio, but that would never happen I guess. I've just started what I hope to be a long and successful career and I'm considering opting out of the company pension and managing it myself. Some economics people want to make this an \"\"every man for himself\"\" situation. Right now I pay $400 per month into a pension, and at any point it may not exist. I don't think I'm alone in the idea that I can manage my own portfolio at least as well as that, and my own pension will stay with me no matter what, no matter how many companies I work for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "600627b380e6ff8992b9348e5bac161f", "text": "There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "709ae6352aeb35795ce0ef2387bba088", "text": "As a solo-investor I'm not sure how I'd prove that. Showing statements? Sorry, not out of privacy but out of embarrassment. I've made quite a few mistake of investing in companies against market sentiment that proved to be god awful right, and god awful wrong for me. I'm hoping for a helluva rebound in the 10's", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4478136b0fb1680b61b170be6e8bfb0f", "text": "Restricting the discussion only to Internet hacking: In Option 2 or Option 3, you have to realize that the funds are credited to a specific Registered Bank Account. So the max damage an hacker can do is liquidate your holding. In Option 2, the Banking Internet Login and the Broker Internet Login will be different, For example HDFC Bank and HDFC Securities. In Option 3, if you choose your Bank, then it will be the same Login. If you choose a Non-Bank as provider then there is a different login. The risk is no different to investing in shares. In the end its up to an individual, there is nothing that stops you from opening multiple accounts in option 2 and option 3 and buying the stocks worth particular value. From an overall risk point of view; Option 2 seems best suited as the units are held in a Demat from by a Depository.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7777b222351bc03f73b9c5d9a640863", "text": "Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52b7ade0d669c383ccde847428fc5906", "text": "It's a disturbing development -- someone is floating the idea that the executive has the ability to issue debt without the consent of congress to measure the public's reaction. Why disturbing? Because people are using language like this: The president, moreover, can move quickly, but court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.” The implication to your personal finances is that we continue to live in interesting times, and you need to be aware of the downside risks that your investments are exposed to. If your portfolio is built around the idea that US government obligations are risk-free, you need to rethink that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9", "text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6c4e25904404c9210dfa74c3b83da1c", "text": "The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.", "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": "7216604d3f8715b51196cd358b2b6426", "text": "\"JoeTaxpayer's answer adequately explained leverage and some of your risks. Your risks also include: The firm's risk is that you will figure out a way to leave them with a negative account that contributes to another customer's profit and yet you disappear in a way that makes the negative account impossible to collect. Another risk is that you are not who you say you are, or that the money you invest is not yours. These are called \"\"know your customer\"\" risks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88ddcb0c6858f21c6a4571c616e9ba94", "text": "\"When I have stock at my brokerage account, the title is in street name - the brokerage's name and the quantity I own is on the books of the brokerage (insured by SIPC, etc). The brokerage loans \"\"my\"\" shares to a short seller and is happy to facilitate trades in both directions for commissions (it's a nice trick to get other parties to hold the inventory while you reap income from the churn); by selecting the account I have I don't get to choose to not loan out the shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e9f78b304262a787f28122f0e2865ff", "text": "I haven't seen one of these in quite some time. Back in the 1970s, maybe the 1980s, stock brokers would occasionally send their retail clients a complimentary copy once in a while. Also, I remember the local newspaper would offer a year-end edition for a few dollars (maybe $3) and that edition would include the newspaper company's name on the cover. They were very handy little guides measuring 5 1/2 x 8 (horizontal) with one line devoted to each company. They listed hundreds of publicly traded companies and had basic info on each company. As you stated, for further info you needed to go to the library and follow-up with the big S&P and/or Moody's manuals. That was long before the internet made such info available at the click of a button on a home computer!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "403ee36ddc52aed7be3f9ff2502f494f", "text": "\"The link you originally included had an affiliate code included (now removed). It is likely that your \"\"friend\"\" suggested the site to you because there is something in it for your \"\"friend\"\" if you sign up with their link. Seek independent financial advice, not from somebody trying to earn a commission off you. Don't trust everything you read online – again, the advice may be biased. Many of the online \"\"reviews\"\" for Regal Assets look like excuses to post affiliate links. A handful of the highly-ranked (by Google Search) \"\"reviews\"\" about this company even obscure their links to this company using HTTP redirects. Whenever I see this practice in a \"\"review\"\" for a web site, I have to ask if it is to try and appear more independent by hiding the affiliation? Gold and other precious metal commodities can be part of a diversified portfolio, a small part with some value as a hedge, but IMHO it isn't prudent to put all your eggs in that basket. Look up the benefits of diversification. It isn't hard to find compelling evidence in favor of the practice. You should also look up the benefits of low-fee passively-managed index funds. A self-directed IRA with a reputable broker can give you access to a wide selection of low-fee funds, not just a single risky asset class.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d69f5e6cf8b569f776788242ee66c6a8", "text": "\"Chris - you realize that when you buy a stock, the seller gets the money, not the company itself, unless of course, you bought IPO shares. And the amount you'd own would be such a small portion of the company, they don't know you exist. As far as morals go, if you wish to avoid certain stocks for this reason, look at the Socially Responsible funds that are out there. There are also funds that are targeted to certain religions and avoid alcohol and tobacco. The other choice is to invest in individual stocks which for the small investor is very tough and expensive. You'll spend more money to avoid the shares than these very shares are worth. Your proposal is interesting but impractical. In a portfolio of say $100K in the S&P, the bottom 400 stocks are disproportionately smaller amounts of money in those shares than the top 100. So we're talking $100 or less. You'd need to short 2 or 3 shares. Even at $1M in that fund, 20-30 shares shorted is pretty silly, no offense. Why not 'do the math' and during the year you purchase the fund, donate the amount you own in the \"\"bad\"\" companies to charity. And what littleadv said - that too.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87a9f1d455a99760f43c4389b1a0863d", "text": "If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant. Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it. The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e9529326c199290453e411dfa9508fb4	How to invest in gold at market value, i.e. without paying a markup?	[ { "docid": "96a7f25ee20dc1b974b4c5e296b433dd", "text": "if you bought gold in late '79, it would have taken 30 years to break even. Of all this time it was two brief periods the returns were great, but long term, not so much. Look at the ETF GLD if you wish to buy gold, and avoid most of the buy/sell spread issues. Edit - I suggest looking at Compound Annual Growth Rate and decide whether long term gold actually makes sense for you as an investor. It's sold with the same enthusiasm as snake oil was in the 1800's, and the suggestion that it's a storehouse of value seems nonsensical to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afddbbed11db47d06d77751f3d76f112", "text": "\"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an \"\"Authorized Participant\"\". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any \"\"spread tax\"\" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (\"\"initial margin and maintenance margin\"\"), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2ad1073731e8909e52ab00388e1e62a", "text": "ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6739f7b487afcbf39fc92d7f5b1b0c3d", "text": "I agree that there is no reliable way to buy gold for less than spot, no more than there is for any other commodity. However, you can buy many things below market from motivated sellers. That is why you see so many stores buying gold now. It will be hard to find such sellers now with the saturation of buyers, but if you keep an eye on private sales and auctions you may be able to pick up something others miss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c507717d9501648c82e19ba942fa209", "text": "This is an excellent question; kudos for asking it. How much a person pays over spot with gold can be negotiated in person at a coin shop or in an individual transaction, though many shops will refuse to negotiate. You have to be a clever and tough negotiator to make this work and you won't have any success online. However, in researching your question, I dug for some information on one gold ETF OUNZ - which is physically backed by gold that you can redeem. It appears that you only pay the spot price if you redeem your shares for physical gold: But aren't those fees exorbitant? After all, redeeming for 50 ounces of Gold Eagles would result in a $3,000 fee on a $65,000 transaction. That's 4.6 percent! Actually, the fee simply reflects the convenience premium that gold coins command in the market. Here are the exchange fees compared with the premiums over spot charged by two major online gold retailers: Investors do pay an annual expense ratio, but the trade-off is that as an investor, you don't have to worry about a thief breaking in and stealing your gold.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a8f1abe5d6acad4a5681cbee71690432", "text": "\"Invest in other currencies and assets that have \"\"real\"\" value. And personally I don't count gold as something of real value. Of course its used in the industry but besides that its a pretty useless metal and only worth something because everybody else thinks that everybody thinks its worth something. So I would buy land, houses, stocks, ...\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da970b33c88bfcf180ba2e428bd05130", "text": "\"There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"real gold\"\". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2f7b297afb74669d216bbe219f2ae73", "text": "There are various exchanges around the world that handle spot precious metal trading; for the most part these are also the primary spot foreign exchange markets, like EBS, Thomson Reuters, Currenex (website seems to be down), etc. You can trade on these markets through brokers just like you can trade on stock markets. However, the vast majority of traders on these exchanges do not intend to hold any bullion ownership at the end of the day; they want to buy as much as they sell each day. A minority of traders do intend to hold metal positions for longer periods, but I doubt any of them intend to actually go collect bullion from the exchange. I don't think it's even possible. Really the only way to get bullion is to pay a service fee to a dealer like you mentioned. But on an exchange like the ones above you have to pay three different fees: So in the end you can't even get the spot price on the exchanges where the spot prices are determined. You might even come out ahead by going to a dealer. You should try to find a reputable dealer, and go in knowing the latest trade prices. An honest dealer will have a website showing you the current trade prices, so you know that they expect you to know the prices when you come in. For example, here's a well-known dealer in Chicago that happily shows you the spot prices from KITCO so you can decide whether their service fee is worth it or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08cec8c13d6cc51c6f85f6b481c17691", "text": "Owning physical gold (assuming coins): Owning gold through a fund:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdffb915d0dd1bd742154da933a60b2b", "text": "The points given by DumbCoder are very valid. Diversifying portfolio is always a good idea. Including Metals is also a good idea. Investing in single metal though may not be a good idea. •Silver is pretty cheap now, hopefully it will be for a while. •Silver is undervalued compared to gold. World reserve ratio is around 1 to 11, while price is around 1 to 60. Both the above are iffy statements. Cheap is relative term ... there are quite a few metals more cheaper than Silver [Copper for example]. Undervalued doesn't make sense. Its a quesiton of demand and supply. Today Industrial use of Silver is more widespread, and its predecting future what would happen. If you are saying Silver will appreciate more than other metals, it again depends on country and time period. There are times when even metals like Copper have given more returns than Silver and Gold. There is also Platinum to consider. In my opinion quite a bit of stuff is put in undervalued ... i.e. comparing reserve ratio to price in absolute isn't right comparing it over relative years is right. What the ratio says is for every 11 gms of silver, there is 1 gm of Gold and the price of this 1 gm is 60 times more than silver. True. And nobody tell is the demand of Silver 60 times more than Gold or 11 times more than Gold. i.e. the consumption. What is also not told is the cost to extract the 11 gms of silver is less than cost of 1 gm of Gold. So the cheapness you are thinking is not 100% true.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d7d32aa6bacabb609be5bda2008d0c4", "text": "By mentioning GLD, I presume therefore you are referring to the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund that is intended to mirror the price of gold without you having to personally hold bullion, or even gold certificates. While how much is a distinctly personal choice, there are seemingly (at least) three camps of people in the investment world. First would be traditional bond/fixed income and equity people. Gold would play no direct role in their portfolio, other than perhaps holding gold company shares in some other vehicle, but they would not hold much gold directly. Secondly, at the mid-range would be someone like yourself, that believes that is in and of itself a worthy investment and makes it a non-trivial, but not-overriding part of their portfolio. Your 5-10% range seems to fit in well here. Lastly, and to my taste, over-the-top, are the gold-gold-gold investors, that seem to believe it is the panacea for all market woes. I always suspect that investment gurus that are pushing this, however, have large positions that they are trying to run up so they can unload. Given all this, I am not aware of any general rule about gold, but anything less than 10% would seem like at least a not over-concentration in the one area. Once any one holding gets much beyond that, you should really examine why you believe that it should represent such a large part of your holdings. Good Luck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b1b4d9b1b9d014f7d6ce32132da3509", "text": "You are really tangling up two questions here: Q1: Given I fear a dissolution of the Euro, is buying physical gold a good response and if so, how much should I buy? I see you separately asked about real estate, and cash, and perhaps other things. Perhaps it would be better to just say: what is the right asset allocation, rather than asking about every thing individually, which will get you partial and perhaps contradictory answers. The short answer, knowing very little about your case, is that some moderate amount of gold (maybe 5-10%, at most 25%) could be a counterbalance to other assets. If you're concerned about government and market stability, you might like Harry Browne's Permanent Portfolio, which has equal parts stocks, bonds, cash, and gold. Q2: If I want to buy physical gold, what size should I get? One-ounce bullion (about 10 x 10 x 5mm, 30g) is a reasonably small physical size and a reasonable monetary granularity: about $1700 today. I think buying $50 pieces of gold is pointless: However much you want to have in physical gold, buy that many ounces.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cc918d7d360e8385f3ff962b9230f3a", "text": "\"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bad177efac3dfd6b41b35d802005ab10", "text": "Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "257a8f93e0de0801f8797cea3e791f6e", "text": "Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31d6992cf6ec96afe2148aa04cd54d57", "text": "I agree with buying gold, as this is truly the worldwide currency and will only increase in value if the Euro fails. The only issue will be if your country confiscates all citizen's gold ( it has happened many times throughout history. As for ETFs, be careful because unless you purchase these in terms of other currencies (I am assuming you aren't), than the ETF you own is still in terms of Euros, making the whole investment worthless if you are trying to avoid Euro currency risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c63f60ca1d9b71a71bf801ba065460cb", "text": "There are bullion dealers who will buy gold no matter its form. You won't get the spot price as it's probably being bought same as junk jewelry or any other gold needing to be melted and recast. If this is your concern, you should buy a fireproof safe, the kind people use to store their important documents, and add the gold value to home insurance policy. Do not get a safe deposit box at the bank, see mbhunter's comment and link.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab6cc8d9826ecf75e8add750017c25d1", "text": "\"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"", "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": "a336e432920f71cf5cf7ca918fa8eb41", "text": "I have a bank account in the US from some time spent there a while back. When I wanted to move most of the money to the UK (in about 2006), I used XEtrade who withdrew the money from my US account and sent me a UK cheque. They might also offer direct deposit to the UK account now. It was a bit of hassle getting the account set up and linked to my US account, but the transaction itself was straightforward. I don't think there was a specific fee, just spread on the FX rate, but I can't remember for certain now - I was transfering a few thousand dollars, so a relatively small fixed fee would probably not have bothered me too much.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ce4c59b15893180a5c1057e7483c2eb6	What are the pros and cons of buying a house just to rent it out?	[ { "docid": "f598ab2f6fbf16a9948e513ffbee3307", "text": "Lets consider what would happen if you invested $1500/mo plus $10k down in a property, or did the same in a low-cost index fund over the 30 year term that most mortgages take. The returns of either scenarios cannot be guaranteed, but there are long term analyses that shows the stock market can be expected to return about 7%, compounded yearly. This doesn't mean each year will return 7%, some years will be negative, and some will be much higher, but that over a long span, the average will reach 7%. Using a Time-Value-of-Money calculator, that down payment, monthly additions of $1,500, and a 7% annual return would be worth about $1.8M in 30 years. If 1.8M were invested, you could safely withdraw $6000/mo for the rest of your life. Do consider 30years of inflation makes this less than today's dollar. There are long term analyses that show real estate more-or-less keeps track with inflation at 2-4% annual returns. This doesn't consider real estate taxes, maintenance, insurance and the very individual and localized issues with your market and your particular house. Is land limited where you are, increasing your price? Will new development drive down your price? In 30 years, you'll own the house outright. You'll still need to pay property tax and insurance on it, and you'll be getting rental income. Over those 30 years, you can expect to replace a roof, 2-3 hot water heaters, concrete work, several trees, decades of snow shoveling, mowing grass and weeding, your HVAC system, windows and doors, and probably a kitchen and bathroom overhauls. You will have paid about 1.5x the initial price of the mortgage in interest along the way. So you'll have whatever the rental price for your house, monthly (probably almost impossible to predict for a single-family home) plus the market price of your house. (again, very difficult to predict, but could safely say it keeps pace with inflation) minus your expenses. There are scenarios where you could beat the stock market. There are ways to reduce the lifestyle burden of being a landlord. Along the way, should you want to purchase a house for yourself to live in, you'll have to prove the rental income is steady, to qualify for a loan. Having equity in a mortgage gives you something to borrow against, in a HELOC. Of course, you could easily end up owing more than your house is worth in that situation. Personally, I'd stick to investing that money in low-fee index funds.", "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": "5c0f2b4fc4ce9963d3f9157bd0fd33a4", "text": "I would suggest the use of a management company to handle a rental property. They will take care of things like collecting rent, coordinating repairs and all the little things that come up when dealing with a renters. They typically charge a percentage of the rent or a flat fee, so make sure you include that in your rent calculation. You take a little bit of a financial hit, but save a lot of head aches - especially if you decide to acquire multiple properties in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ca323e13f071336a0d05518e08bf5a4", "text": "From personal experience: Loan Impact It does impact your ability to take out other loans (to an extent) Your first investment property is going to go against your debt to income levels, so if you take out a loan, you've essentially decreased the amount you can borrow before you hit a lender's debt to income ceiling. Two things about that: 1) I'm assuming you have a primary mortgage - if that's the case they will factor what you are already paying for your primary house + any car loans + any student loans, etc. Once you've successfully taken out a mortgage for your investment property, you're probably close to your debt to income ceiling for any other loans. 2) There is usually a 2 year time period where this will matter the most. Once you've rented out this property for 2 years, most financial institutions will consider a percentage of the rent as income. At this point you can then take on more debt if you choose. Other (Possibly Negative) Impacts and Considerations Maintenance Costs Renovations Turnovers Taxes and Insurance Downpayments and interest Income tax Advertising costs Property Management costs Closing costs and Legal fees Vacancies HOA fees Other (Possibly Positive) Impacts and Considerations Passive Income as long as the numbers are right and you have a good property manager Tax deductions (And depreciation) Rent has low correlation to the market Other investment alternatives: Stocks Reits (not directly comparable to investment properties) Long story short- can be a hassle but if the numbers are right, it can be a good investment. There's a series of articles further explaining these above listed components in detail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a8f1abce7f1bb4e2585da25dee8fb6b", "text": "You should absolutely go for it, and I encourage you to look for multi-unit (up to 4) properties if there are any in your area. With nulti-unit properties it is far more common than not that the other units pay the mortgage. To comment on your point about slowly building an asset if the renter covers the payment; that's true, but you're also missing the fact that you get to write off the interest on your income taxes, that's another great benefit. If you intend to make a habit out of being a landlord, I highly encourage you to use a property management company. Most charge less than 10% and will handle all of the tough stuff for you, like: fielding sob stories from tenants, evicting tenants, finding new tenants, checking to make sure the property is maintained... It's worth it. There fees are also tax-deductible... It makes a boat load of sense. Just look at the world around you. How many wealthy people rent??? I've met one, but they own investment properties though...", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2fe3e77ea164c71f4537732e30cb089d", "text": "Property in general tends to go up in value. That's one advantage you won't get if you rent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26cbf718ff59fcc3d6dcab61bda540c0", "text": "I just read through all of the answers to this question and there is an important point that no one has mentioned yet: Oftentimes, buying a house is actually cheaper than renting the identical house. I'm looking around my area (suburbs of Chicago, IL) in 2017 and seeing some houses that are both for sale and for rent, which makes for an easy comparison. If I buy the house with $0 down (you can't actually put $0 down but it makes the numerical comparison more accurate if you do), my monthly payment including mortgage (P+I), taxes, insurance, and HOA, is still $400 less than the monthly rent payment. (If I put 20% down it's an even bigger savings.) So, in addition to the the tax advantages of owning a home, the locked in price that helps you in an economy that experiences inflation, and the accumulated equity, you may even have extra cash flow too. If you were on the fence when you would have had to pay more per month in order to purchase, it should be a no-brainer to buy if your monthly cost is lower. From the original question: Get a loan and buy a house, or I can live for the rest of my life in rent and save the extra money (investing and stuff). Well, you may be able to buy a house and save even more money than if you rent. Of course, this is highly dependent on your location.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a1ac34ba5a624f1821b5a26bd294ad", "text": "It is easier to get a loan on a rental than a flip, which is a huge advantage to rental properties. Leverage allows you to increase your returns and make more money off appreciation and higher rents. I use ARMs to finance my rental properties that are amortized over 30 years. I have to put 20 percent down, but my portfolio lender lets me get as many loans as I want. Because I put 20 percent down on my rental properties and they still have great cash flow I can buy three times as many properties as I could with cash purchases. Buying more rental properties amplifies the other advantages like cash flow, equity pay down and the tax advantages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd45428a5440e0c854325bd463132338", "text": "Altough this may vary a lot depending on where you live and your actual finance, here what convinced me buying a home instead of renting : Other benefits :", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa12cba86d52e3dec51271ecfec2688a", "text": "I can't think of any more negatives apart from what you mentioned, but the positives might include higher cost base for when you sell the place (this only applies in Australia if it is an investment property) thus having to pay less tax on the capital gains, and being able to borrowing extra funds which may help with your cashflow (especially if you keep the extra funds in an 100% offset account so your interest payable is not increased until you really need the extra funds).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a66da7a6d68a0dceacd379e7774fb33", "text": "It's hard to financially justify buying a house just for one person to live in. You end up being 'over-housed' (and paying for it). Would you rent a whole house for yourself? A condo might be an option - but TO ME the maintenance fees are hard to take (and they are notorious for increasing dramatically as the building ages). You could consider buying a house that includes 1 or 2 rental units, or sharing with a friend. You do run the risk of having bad tenants though, and you have additional maintance to deal with. Having a rental unit in my modest house has worked out very well for me (living alone), and I have been VERY fortunate with tenants.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2ddf482737d372ae1c5fb5ee672551", "text": "\"Some pros and cons to renting vs buying: Some advantages of buying: When you rent, the money you pay is gone. When you buy, assuming you don't have the cash to buy outright but get a mortgage, some of the payment goes to interest, but you are building equity. Ultimately you pay off the mortgage and you can then live rent-free. When you buy, you can alter your home to your liking. You can paint in the colors you like, put in the carpet or flooring you like, heck, tear down walls and alter the floor plan (subject to building codes and safety consideration, of course). If you rent, you are usually sharply limited in what alterations you can make. In the U.S., mortgage interest is tax deductible. Rent is not. Property taxes are deductible from your federal income tax. So if you have, say, $1000 mortgage vs $1000 rent, the mortgage is actually cheaper. Advantages of renting: There are a lot of transaction costs involved in buying a house. You have to pay a realtor's commission, various legal fees, usually \"\"loan origination fees\"\" to the bank, etc. Plus the way mortgages are designed, your total payment is the same throughout the life of the loan. But for the first payment you owe interest on the total balance of the loan, while the last payment you only owe interest on a small amount. So early payments are mostly interest. This leads to the conventional advice that you should not buy unless you plan to live in the house for some reasonably long period of time, exact amount varying with whose giving the advice, but I think 3 to 5 years is common. One mitigating factor: Bear in mind that if you buy a house, and then after 2 years sell it, and you discover that the sale price minus purchase price minus closing costs ends up a net minus, say, $20,000, it's not entirely fair to say \"\"zounds! I lost $20,000 by buying\"\". If you had not bought this house, presumably you would have been renting. So the fair comparison is, mortgage payments plus losses on the resale compared to likely rental payments for the same period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfe64bcc2247e9dad272b964b2a148b8", "text": "\"First, let me mention that the reasons mentioned this far for renting are excellent ones. But, I disagree. Second, I would like to mention that I'm just a regular Joe, not an accountant, or a realtor. That said, I was in a similar situation not that long ago. I ended up renting, but I wish I hadn't. You should check out the \"\"offers\"\" in your area. You seem like you're willing to compromise on a more standard, or older home. If that is the case and you are willing to \"\"settle\"\" for an older town-home, or something similar, it might be in your best interest to do so. In my area for instance, the urban areas are becoming a bit crowded. This is good news for the people who already own homes in those urban areas, but bad news for people who are looking to rent an apartment (which tend to be located in urban areas) or buy a house in these urban areas. The reason I say that is simple; there is only one thing there will never be more of: land. If people are moving into these areas, and there is limited room to build structures, the demand is going up while the supply is unable to keep up. This means an increase in prices. BUT, this can also be used to your advantage. As the demand for those urban areas goes up, the rural areas around the urban areas are likely to be subsidized. For instance, near me, if you're willing to be 20 minutes from the nearest Walmart and you have a 550+ credit score and a stable income, you're able to acquire a government subsidized loan with 0% down. (I would recommend dropping at least SOMETHING, however, if possible.) Apartments of the size your family is going to require are going to be expensive. People who own apartment buildings are looking to make the most money per square foot. This means most apartment complexes are going to be filled with 1-2 bedroom apartments, but have very few if any 3+ bedroom apartments. (Again, this is my general experience, but it may be different where you're living.) I suspect the apartment your family is going to need is going to end up being very expensive, especially if people are moving into your town. You might consider trying to get a lower-quality house as apposed to a rare and large apartment for a few pretty obvious reasons: Don't misunderstand me, though. A lot of people get infatuated with the idea of being a home owner, and end up getting into something they will never be able to maintain, and if that happens it's something that's going to follow you for the rest of your life. As for your student loans, if you NEED to and you qualify you can apply for hardship. This would mean that you don't have to pay anything, or pay a reduced rate for some arbitrary approved amount of time, or until some arbitrary circumstance is met. However, do not take this lightly. While doing this might not necessarily accrue interest (depending on whether or not your loans were subsidized or unsubsidized and a host of other factors it might actually halt interest) these loans will follow you even into bankruptcy. Meaning if you get your student loans postponed and end up losing the house anyway, you have to make a fresh start with a bankruptcy AND student loans on your back. Furthermore, you can't count your chickens before they hatch, and neither will the banks. A big part of qualifying for a loan is your proof of income. If you haven't had that steady job for 6 months to a year or more, you're going to have a tough time getting a loan. Suppose your wife-to-be DOES start making that income...it's still not going to make a difference to the banks until they can say that it's not just a month long fling. Last, after reading all this I want to tell you that I am BIAS. I happened to miss the opportunity I'm explaining to you now, and that affects what I think you should do in this situation. Weigh the options carefully and objectively. Talk to your fiance. Talk to your friends, parents, anyone who is close with you. Come to an educated decision, rather than the decision that might be more exciting, or the one you WISH you could take. Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "146939b11f6b5588c7c46d9512c63c47", "text": "what I should think about. If you decide to do this - get everything in writing. Get lease agreements to enforce the business side of the relationship. If they are not comfortable with that much formality, it's probably best not to do it, I'm not saying that you should not do this - but that you need to think about these type of scenarios before committing to a house purchase.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bbabfbd9e194fcd9a3fcd566cc2d9c1", "text": "\"I don't know what country you live in or what the laws and practical circumstances of owning rental property there are. But I own a rental property in the U.S., and I can tell you that there are a lot of headaches that go with it. One: Maintenance. You say you have to pay an annual fee of 2,400 for \"\"building maintenance\"\". Does that cover all maintenance to the unit or only the exterior? I mean, here in the U.S. if you own a condo (we call a unit like you describe a \"\"condo\"\" -- if you rent it, it's an apartment; if you own it, it's a condo) you typically pay an annual fee that cover maintenance \"\"from the walls out\"\", that is, it covers maintenance to the exterior of the building, the parking lot, any common recreational areas like a swimming pool, etc. But it doesn't cover interior maintenance. If there's a problem with interior wiring or plumbing or the carpet needs to be replaced or the place needs painting, that's up to you. With a rental unit, those expenses can be substantial. On my rental property, sure, most months the maintenance is zero: things don't break every month. But if the furnace needs to be replaced or there's a major plumbing problem, it can cost thousands. And you can get hit with lots of nitnoid expenses. While my place was vacant I turned the water heater down to save on utility expenses. Then a tenant moved in and complained that the water heater didn't work. We sent a plumber out who quickly figured out that she didn't realize she had to turn the knob up. Then of course he had to hang around while the water heated up to make sure that was all it was. It cost me, umm, I think $170 to have someone turn that knob. (But I probably saved over $15 on the gas bill by turning it down for the couple of months the place was empty!) Two: What happens when you get a bad tenant? Here in the U.S., theoretically you only have to give 3 days notice to evict a tenant who damages the property or fails to pay the rent. But in practice, they don't leave. Then you have to go to court to get the police to throw them out. When you contact the court, they will schedule a hearing in a month or two. If your case is clear cut -- like the tenant hasn't paid the rent for two months or more -- you will win easily. Both times I've had to do this the tenant didn't even bother to show up so I won by default. So then you have a piece of paper saying the court orders them to leave. You have to wait another month or two for the police to get around to actually going to the unit and ordering them out. So say a tenant fails to pay the rent. In real life you're probably not going to evict someone for being a day or two late, but let's say you're pretty hard-nosed about it and start eviction proceedings when they're a month late. There's at least another two or three months before they're actually going to be out of the place. Of course once you send them an eviction notice they're not going to pay the rent any more. So you have to go four, five months with these people living in your property but not paying any rent. On top of that, some tenants do serious damage to the property. It's not theirs: they don't have much incentive to take care of it. If you evict someone, they may deliberately trash the place out of spite. One tenant I had to evict did over $13,000 in damage. So I'm not saying, don't rent the place out. What I am saying is, be sure to include all your real costs in your calculation. Think of all the things that could go wrong as well as all the things that could go right.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6cdc0588d6d9eead92d49ddb549ec3d1", "text": "\"I would strongly consider renting; as homes are often viewed by people as \"\"investments\"\" but in reality they are costs, just like renting. The time-frame for return is so long, the interest rate structure in terms of your mortgage payments; if you buy, you must be prepared to and willing to stay at minimum 7-10 years; because anything can happen. Hot markets turn cold. Or stale, and just the closing costs will cause it be less advantageous to renting. Before buying a property, ask yourself does it meet these 5 criteria: IDEAL I - Income; the property will provide positive cash flow through renters. D - Depreciation; tax savings. E - Equity; building equity in the property- the best way is through interest only loans. There is NO reason to pay any principle on any property purchase. You do 5 year interest only loans; keep your payments low; and build equity over time as the property price rises. Look how much \"\"principle\"\" you actually pay down over the first 7 years on a 30 year mortgage. Virtually Nil. A - Appreciation - The property will over time go up in value. Period. There is no need to pay any principle. Your Equity will come from this... time. L - Leverage; As the property becomes more valuable; you will have equity stake, enabling you to get higher credit lines, lines of equity credit, to purchase more properties that are IDEA. When you are RICH, MARRIED, and getting ready for a FAMILY, then buy your home and build it. Until then, rent, it will keep your options open. It will keep your costs low. It will protect you from market downturns as leases are typically only 1 year at most. You will have freedom. You will not have to deal with repairs. A new Water Heater, AC unit, the list goes on and on. Focus on making money, and when you want to buy your first house. Buy a duplex; rent it out to two tenants, and make sure it's IDEAL.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a01424e83595065e20e56380b974ff5", "text": "\"I don't know much about New Zealand, but here are just some general thoughts on things to consider. The big difference between buying a house and investing in stocks or the like is that it is fairly easy to invest in a diversified array of stocks (via a mutual fund), but if you buy a house, you are investing in a single piece of property, so everything depends on what happens with that specific property. This in itself is a reason many people don't invest in real estate. Shares of a given company or mutual fund are fungible: if you buy into a mutual fund, you know you're getting the same thing everyone else in the fund is getting. But every piece of real estate is unique, so figuring out how much a property is worth is less of an exact science. Also, buying real estate means you have to maintain it and manage it (or pay someone else to do so). It's a lot more work to accurately assess the income potential of a property, and then maintain and manage the property over years, than it is to just buy some stocks and hold them. Another difficulty is, if and when you do decide to sell the property, doing so again involves work. With stocks you can pretty much sell them whenever you want (although you may take a loss). With a house you have to find someone willing to buy it, which can take time. So a big factor to consider is the amount of effort you're prepared to put into your investment. You mention that your parents could manage the property for you, but presumably you will still have to pay for maintenance and do some managing work yourself (at least discussing things with them and making decisions). Also, if you own the property for a long time your parents will eventually become too old to take care of it, at which point you'll have to rethink the management aspect. So that's sort of the psychological side of things. As for the financial, you don't mention selling the house at any point. If you never sell it, the only gain you get from it is the rent it brings in. So the main factor to consider when deciding whether to buy it as a rental is how much you can rent it for. This is going to be largely determined by where it is located. So from the perspective of making an investment the big question --- which you don't address in the info you provided --- is: how much can you rent this house for, and how much will you be able to rent it for in the future? There is no way to know this for sure, and the only way to get even a rough sense of it is to talk with someone who knows the local real estate market well (e.g., a broker, appraiser, or landlord). If the property is in an \"\"up-and-coming\"\" area (i.e., more people are going to move there in the future), rents could skyrocket; if it's in a backwater, rents could remain stagnant indefinitely. Basically, if you're going to buy a piece of real estate as a long-term investment, you need to know a lot about that property in order to make any kind of comparison with another investment vehicle like a mutual fund. If you already live in the area you may know some things already (like how much you might be able to rent it for). Even so, though, you should try to get some advice from trustworthy people who know the local real estate situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8235e95dbdf4a3ee49fa95b34de43948", "text": "The main point to consider is that your payments toward your own home replace your rent. Any house or apartment you buy will have changes in value; the value is generally going slowly up, but there is a lot of noise, and you may be in a low phase at any time, and for a long time. So seeing it as an investment is not any better than buying share or funds, and it has a much worse liquidity (= you cannot as easily make it to cash when you want to), and not in parts either. However, if you buy for example a one-room apartment for 80000 with a 2% mortgage, and pay 2% interest = 1600 plus 1% principal = 800, for a total of 2400 per year = 200 per month, you are paying less than your current rent, plus you own it after 30 years. Even if it would be worth nothing after 30 years, you made a lot of money by paying half only every month, and it probably is not worthless. You need to be careful not to compare apples with oranges - if you buy a house for 200000 instead, your payments would be higher than your rent was, but you would be living in your house, not in a room. For most people, that is worth a lot. You need to put your own value to that; if you don't care to have a lot more space and freedom, the extra value is zero; if you like it, put a price to it. With current interest rates, it is probably a good idea for most people to buy a house that they can easily afford instead of paying rent. The usual rules should be considered - don't overstretch yourself, leave some security, etc. Generally, it is rather difficult to buy an affordable house instead of renting today and not saving a lot of money in the process, so I would say go for it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b19dd70fbd33a81587c3ac2e2adc32", "text": "\"So either scenario has about $10K upfront costs (either realtor/selling expenses or fixing up for rental). Furthermore, I'm sure that the buyers would want you to fix all these things anyway, or reduce the price accordingly, but let's ignore this. Let's also ignore the remaining mortgage, since it looks like you can comfortably pay it off. Assuming 10% property management and 10% average vacancy (check your market), and rental price at $1000 - you end up with these numbers: I took very conservative estimates both on the rent (lower than you expect) and the maintenance expense (although on average over the years ,since you need to have some reserves, this is probably quite reasonable). You end up with 2.7% ROI, which is not a lot for a rental. The rule of thumb your wife mentioned (1% of cash equity) is indeed usually for ROI of leveraged rental purchase. However, if rental prices in your area are rising, as it sounds like they are, you may end up there quite soon anyway. The downside is that the money is locked in. If you're confident in your ability to rent and are not loosing the tax benefit of selling since it sounds like you've not appreciated, you may take out some cash through a cash-out refi. To keep cash-flow near-0, you need to cash out so that the payments would be at or less than the $3200/year (i.e.: $266/month). That would make about $50K at 30/yr fixed 5% loan. What's best is up to you to decide, of course. Check whether \"\"you can always sell\"\" holds for you. I.e.: how stable is the market, what happens if one or two large employers disappear, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bc46add7bfe3ee10ee4eb7f944b698a", "text": "It sounds like you plan to sell sooner or later. If your opinion is that there is still room for the housing market to grow, make your bet and sell later. The real estate market is much less liquid than other markets you might be invested in, so if you do end up seeing trouble (another housing crash) you may be stuck with your investment for longer than you hoped. I see more risk renting the house out, but I don't see significantly more reward. If you are comfortable with the risk, by all means proceed with your plan to rent. My opinion is contrary to many others here who think real estate investments are more desirable because the returns are less abstract (you can collect the rent directly from your tenants) but all investments are fraught with their own risks. If you like putting in a little sweat equity (doing your own repairs when things break at your rental) renting may be a good match for you. I prefer investments that don't require as much attention, and index funds certainly fit that bill for me.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d03fd13a962d232f6364ba87b6b27988	How do I adjust to a new social class?	[ { "docid": "bb07f62b520ec24071691605fda40047", "text": "Beware of keeping up with the Joneses. Many of your free-spending neighbors are broke. Basically, the prices of things like what you're noticing will rise as incomes in the area rise. A great example of this can be found in state capitals and college towns, where battalions of government workers or students all make just about the same amount of money and drive prices accordingly. For example, a college town tends to have a tight rental market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2260fcfb380a1bb0ce1cce4004fd7a70", "text": "The prices reflect what the market will bear. People have more money, things will likely cost more. Think of it in terms of percentages and you can start to justify the higher housing costs. My father likes to tell me that his first mortgage cost him $75 a month, and he had no idea how he was going to pay it each month. He also earned $3/hr at his job. So his housing costs were 15% of his gross income. My dear father almost passed out when he learned that my mortgage was $1000 a month, but since I earn $4000/month gross, I am really only paying 25% of my salary. (Numbers made up) So if he complains I pay 10% more, so be it, but complaining I pay $925 more isn't worrying to me because of my increased salary. So if your complaint is the amounts, you must take ratios, percentages and relative comparisons. However if you are baffled by people having money and wasting it on silly or foolish purchases, I am with you. I still don't understand why people will use the closest ATM and just pay the $2 fee. Do right by yourself and don't mind what others are up to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b39d160f01e3caff393cd459215bf0a", "text": "Under what conditions did you move? My favourite method of judging prices objectively comes from concepts written in Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez. Essentially it normalizes money spent by making you figure out how much an item costs with respect to the number of hours you needed to work to afford it. I prefer that method versus comparing with others since it is objective for yourself and looks beyond just the bare prices.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7b083113002afa8e951f9a838eaeb80", "text": "I live in one of the highest cost of living areas in my country. For the cost of less than half the down payment my spouse and I have saved up for a house we could easily buy a home in most of the lower cost of living areas (and several homes in, say, Detroit). As for the rest of your question, though, we've chosen not to live that way. Because, like all high cost of living areas, ours is near a city there are more free and inexpensive things to do than you would think at first. While others in our area think a great time is pre-gaming drinks at a nice bar, an expensive restaurant, then some more drinks we've taught ourselves how to make great meals from scratch using sale and inexpensive ingredients from the grocery store and often do that on weekends, topped off by a movie from the redbox that we promptly return the next day. We have chosen friends who will hang out with us over potluck dinners and board games instead of out on the town. On weekend days we visit free museums, do hikes, wander around revitalized downtown strips, or play at the local parks. Our groceries, as I mentioned, are sale items or use coupons and we go for less expensive meats and produce. We visit our local farmer's market for fun, not to buy the expensive produce. We might find ourselves wandering through the mall to window shop, but when it comes time to actually buy clothing or goods for the apartment we shop around for up to months to find a good deal. Plenty of our friends have money enough to spend, and the most debt they are usually wallowing in is a big car payment, no consumer debt. At the same time I have trouble imagining some of them buying a house any time soon, because they simply can't be saving all that much (since I know their incomes). They may eventually be able to afford a condo and ride rising housing prices to a townhome and then a house - it's what lots of people do around here, loosing buckets money in realtor fees and closing costs along the way. Even with these choices, it's hard to view my friends as selfish knowing that most of them give around 10% of their income to charity. There are probably plenty of people around here swimming in debt (somebody recently asked in a Q&A with the local paper editors how she could stop going to the city's most expensive restaurants and start living within her means when she only liked expensive places), but lots of folks can stretch themselves and afford to get by while wasting a lot of money. It's not what my spouse and I have chosen to do, because we want to be able to live very responsibly and plan for a rainy day, but the longer you live with and around the money that tends to permeate high cost of living areas, the more it will seem normal to you. Also, if it's really $1000/mo for a 2 br. apartment, your cost of living is still lower than mine is. If I were you I wouldn't try to acclimate myself to the spendy habits of your surroundings. Instead I'd find friends who are frugal and work on maintaining your good financial habits. If you ever want one of those $4, $5, or $6K (plus!) houses, you're going to need them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b420ccf4e361af0cac0ff7b8be27cfa8", "text": "Housing, eh? Housing costs are driven by salaries and land availability. Over in the Bay Area, $1500/mo for a nice 1-bedroom apartment is a good deal... but a decent software engineer with ~4 years' experience can get $120k, easily. The standard benchmark of affordability of housing is spending a third of your income on it a year: that guy can afford about $3,333/mo on housing. (If you don't fritter away the money and can keep your cost of living down and save money, you can really clean up, especially if you move elsewhere later.) So, to stop thinking about it in terms of dollar value, first try to think of it in terms of time: 33% of someone's salary or a third of their time at work going for housing is pretty nominal. Beyond that, think about it in terms of opportunity cost: If you saved that extra $20, what exactly would you use it for, and how much of that goal does it represent?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e45bc6febff4f515cef2d45ec46f69de", "text": "\"And specifically regarding prices of housing, what factors drive prices in that regard? I mean, the houses are roughly the same... but almost 3 times as expensive. Rent, like so many things, is tied to supply and demand. On the demand side, rent is tied to income. People tend to buy as much house as they can afford, given that mortgage interest is deductible and public schools, financed through property tax, performs better in valuable neighborhoods. Raise the minimum wage and economists expect rents to go up accordingly. When employers and pensions offer COLA adjustments, it feeds into a price loop. During the past ten years, there was also some \"\"animal spirits\"\" / irrational behavior present; people feared that if they didn't buy now, home prices would outpace their growth in income. So even though it didn't make sense at the time, they bought because it would make even less sense later (if you assume prices only go up). There's also the whole California has nicer weather angle to explain why people move to SF or LA. On the supply side, it's all about housing stock. In your old town, you could find vacant lots or farmland in less than 5 minute's drive from anywhere. There's far less room for growth in say, the SF Bay area or NYC. There's also building codes that restrict the growth in housing stock. I'm told Boulder, CO is one such place. You would think that high prices would discourage people from moving or working there, but between the university and the defense contractors triangle, they seem to have an iron grip on the market. (Have you ever seen a cartoon where a character gets a huge bill at a restaurant, and their eyes shoot out of their eye sockets and they faint? Yeah... that's how I felt looking at some of the places around here...) Remember, restaurants have to cover the same rent problem you do. And they have higher minimum wages, and taxes, etc. Moreover, food has to be imported from miles away to feed the city, likely even from out of state. In California, there's also food regulations that in effect raise the prices. If people are footing those higher bills, I wouldn't be surprised if they're racking up debt in the process, and dodging the collectors calling about their Lexus, or taking out home equity loans to cover their lifestyle.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "c3b238fd91a17bef91add902c9bdcc12", "text": "A lot of people will probably talk about appearance, body language and all the rest of the social stuff I say..If you have evidence to prove you are competent to do the job, concentrate on that..just the facts, clearly explained Of course, if you are incompetent..get a nicer suit, learn how to shake hands and practice brown-nosing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7fb32d885c0d49e22d846fd4b3a0357", "text": "The entire best schools progress starting with one level then onto the next and master skills in a logical order. Preferably your school ought to take after an evaluated syllabus that will guarantee that you build up a strong establishment of quality and strategy for your dancing. The essential thing is to be prepared in a pleasant environment in which you are comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c28e54d0cf1aeff48007b17823fb759", "text": "If you literally know almost nothing? I suggest: 1) learn financial terms, such as going through a glossary 2) learn how to read financial statements (balance, income, and cash flow sheets) edit: If you mean just in terms of a job? I have no advice other than to keep your mind open, adapt, and be proactive/enthusiastic.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77ab1d33ec2931a9eb55d8b0db9fe0b6", "text": "\"There are only two ways to increase your savings: You are young, and both of these are likely to spontaneously happen - you will be promoted and get raises, and your loans will be paid off, removing the loan payment. It would seem that you need only to wait a year or so, and there will a lot more than $87 left over each month, and your savings will grow almost without any action from you. But somehow, that is not what happens in real life. As people get older they \"\"need\"\" more than they did before (larger home, more expensive \"\"things\"\", etc) and they never manage to get around to saving. So it's great that you are wondering how to do it. But you are not truly making it a priority. You mention that you also pay/spend for friends, the internet, play & joy, cloth, gifts, book, etc. And this armwavy entirely optional spending is the difference between 72.85 (such precision!) and 90% of your salary. In other words it is 17-18% or more than your rent. Think about that for a moment. Every month you spend more than your rent on friends, play, joy, books and good old etc. If you were to cut that in half, you could save 8 or 9% of your salary. Maybe after your next raise you can get that up to 10%. How can you cut that optional \"\"fun\"\" stuff in half? Well, I don't know, because I don't know what it is, and I suspect you don't either. So track it, for a month or two. Are you getting takeout food or coffee every day? Are you always the one who pays when you go out with friends? Do you eat in restaurants a lot? Do you always wear the latest fashions, buy $500 shoes, pay people to do your nails or dye your hair, buy a new phone every year, have the top end phone plan, top end cable plan, ... You have to know where that rent's-worth of money goes every month. Then you can figure out how to send some of it to savings instead. In some ways you are in a hard generation. Your parents didn't need to save for their retirement because they had you, and they know you will send money home for them. But you probably don't expect the same from the children you don't have yet, so you have to save for yourself. This is a challenge. If you were saving the money you send your parents, you'd be fine. Yet you don't want to reduce what you send, they need it. Still, people have faced bigger challenges and overcome them. Start by understanding where your fun money is going, then look at how to send some (aim for half) of that to savings instead. You won't regret it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5068515c76cec81d8dbe9df197699d34", "text": "You're spot on. I'm coming in because he thinks nobody else is doing a good job, and he's hoping we can turn things around. Everyone will know who I am, complete with family gossip. The existing culture will NOT be helpful. Perhaps a softer teamwork approach would be best in this instance? Slowly work up and earn respect and assume responsibility.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d90ad628343149c138ff28fb39202114", "text": "The best way to get what you want is to deserve it. I like the top commenter here in how they lead off- be honest about everything. Show them you know you're new to the group and don't expect to know everything off the bat. Start getting really involved in learning the business- read some books, ask your family a million questions, and take it seriously. The more you do at the beginning, the better off your journey will be.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a3ee6508d7ca402a4b15aab6deefe6", "text": "Make sure your English is as fluent as you can, and learn more about western cultures so you can talk about peoples home countries with them. You don't need to be an expert but just enough to get a conversation started and get people talking. A random discussion about an old American TV show called Stargate SG1 on a overnight train in Thailand resulted in the waitress selling me a lot more coffee than she would have done otherwise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f560da5f7b7976b90f3d484ef369468", "text": "I'm not familiar with this guy. I think he's right about there being a cultural separation between the classes. But I also think it was pretty telling that this bourgeois dude interpreted a high school graduate's sticker shock as bewilderment and awe with something beyond baloney sandwiches.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78ab9aba895609270936e9fa23a1b938", "text": "\"You sound like you're well educated, well spoken, and resourceful, so I'm going to assume that you are somewhere in the neighborhood of top 5% material. That means you can pretty much do anything you want to if you put enough effort into it. There are two types of people in this world: those who run the world and those who live comfortably in it (and, of course, everyone else, but they are irrelevant to the discussion). Who do you want to be? I've been around a lot of wildly successful people, and they have two consistent traits: connections and freedom. First, everyone always told me that \"\"it's not what you know, it's who you know\"\", but I never appreciated it until after college. The world runs on connections. The more connections you have, and the more successful they are, the more successful you will be. Second, the more freedom you have, the more opportunity you will have to take chances, which is how you become wildly successful. Freedom comes from not being in debt (first) and having money (second). Why do you think Harvard grads are the guys that end up having so much money and power? It's probably because they grew up in a rich family which provided them money (freedom) and a wide social circle of rich people (connections). So you're not rich. What to do? Well, the easiest way to get into that group is to go to college with them. And that means you need to get into Harvard or another Ivy League. Stanford if you want to be an engineer. College will be where you will make your most intense and long-lasting friendships. That roommate at Harvard that you went on the crazy four-day road trip with may someday be CEO of a company... and when he needs a CIO, you can be damn sure you'll be at the top of the list if you're qualified. But Harvard costs a lot of money...which means you'll be in debt, a lot, when you get out of college. You'll have lots of rich, important friends(connections), but you'll be deeply in debt (no freedom). Most of these type of people end up becoming consultants at big firms because they pay well. You'll live a comfortable life and pay off your student loans in five or 10 years. Then you'll continue to live comfortably, but at that point you'll be too old to take huge chances and too comfortable to change things (or perhaps you'll have a big mortgage = no freedom). With a heavy debt load, it's almost impossible to, say, join an early stage startup and really be able to take huge chances. You can do it, maybe. Or, as an alternate option, you can do what I did. Go to a cheap state school and graduate with no debt. That puts you on the other side of the fence: freedom, but no connections. Then, in order to be successful, you have to figure out how to get connections. Goldman Sachs won't hire you, and everyone you meet is going to automatically assume you're mediocre because of where you went to college. At this point, your only option is to take big chances. Move to New York or San Francisco, offer to work for free as an intern somewhere or something. It can be done, and it's really not too hard, you just have to have lots of spending restraint because the little money you have has to go a long way. So what are the other options? Well, some people are recommending that you think about not going to college at all. That will certainly save you money and give you a four year head start on whatever you decide to do (freedom), but you'll forever be branded as that guy without a college degree. Think my second option above but just two or three times worse. You won't even get that free internship, and you'll be that weird guy at dinner parties who can\"\"t answer the first question \"\"So, where did you go to college?\"\". It doesn't matter if you're self-taught; life isn't a meritocracy. If you're very good, you'll end up getting a nice cushy job pushing ones and zeros. A nice cushy golden handcuff job. Well, you could go to community college. They're certainly cheap. You can spend very little money so you'll end up with fairly good freedom. I might add, though, that community colleges teach trades, and not high-level things like management and complex architecture. You'll be behind technically, but not as bad as if you didn't go at all. How about connections? Your fellow students will probably lack ambition, money, and connections. They'll be candidates for entry-level wage slave jobs at Fortune 500 companies after they graduate. If they get lucky, they'll work up to middle management. There's no alumni association, and there's certainly no \"\"DeVry Club\"\" in downtown Boston. At New York and Silicon Valley dinner parties, having a community college degree is almost as bad as having nothing at all. Indeed, the entire value of the community college degree will be what you learn, and you'll be learning at the speed and level of your classmates. My advice? If you get into an Ivy League school, go and hope you get some grants to help you out. The debt will suck, but you'll be well positioned for the future. Otherwise, go to a cheap second-tier school where you can get a large scholarship. There are also lots of third-party scholarships that are out there on the Internet you can get. I got a couple from local organizations. Don't work during college. Focus on expanding your network instead; the future value of a minimum wage job while you're trying to go through school is practically zero.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76250d9504f522d8b467466f127ac2a3", "text": "This advice is easily ignored because it's one of the more difficult to do, especially if you describe yourself as an introvert: Alumni. If you went to a well known University - you should have a massive alumni network at your fingertips. You need to replicate those informational interviews with dozens and dozens of alumni. One at a time of course, but reach out to them, honestly. Call or email if you're too uncomfortable calling. You won't get a response to every email you send or call you make, but I promise it's THE best way to get where you want to go. Especiall if you've already exhausted your own family and friends network. Rough example email below:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed070c6d486289428da5bfc290df3e03", "text": "> Example abound of rich kids who don't pan out and poor kids who make it. This is not really very true. Social mobility is not so common - if you're born in the poorest or riches 1% or 10% of the population, the chances are you'll spend your whole life in that demographic. Figures are not so easy to come by on these particular margins, but it's easy to find studies that show 42 percent of American men raised in the bottom fifth of incomes stay there as adults, whilst just 8 percent rise to the top fifth. [[cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States)] Yet it's really the poorest 1% and 10% we should be thinking about, and comparing them to the richest 1% and 10%, when we ask how fair our society is. They are surely less socially mobile. Meanwhile, [UK statistics](http://www.lonegunman.co.uk/2009/12/11/statistics-on-social-mobility-and-belief-systems/): * Privately educated candidates account for 7 per cent of the population, but occupy more than half of the top professional jobs. * 75 per cent of judges, 45 per cent of senior civil servants, and a third of MPs are privately educated. * More than 4 in 10 places and Oxford and Cambridge go to privately educated candidates. * 30 per cent of children on free school meals do not get good GCSEs. * Of students getting 3 As at A-Level, just 0.5 per cent were eligible for free school meals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1e84aca639f63199e0e676640938b69", "text": "\"Not true. Replace \"\"Ivy League\"\" with \"\"target school,\"\" and you'll be far more accurate. When I started my BB front-office job, I had gone to a target school but not an Ivy League. Two other classmates attended target schools in the south, but far from Ivy league. One of those two is now one of Goldman's youngest partners. PS Don't count on starting in the back office and moving up - it's about as common as a blue lobster.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc14076270f5f9e494121e852cdb94e9", "text": "\"In most cases, if you are a member of the class the law-firm will contact you via postal mail to notify you of the class action and give you an opportunity to opt-in or opt-out of participating in any settlement that happens. More often than not, they take the opt-out approach, meaning that if you don't say you want out of the class it is assumed that you agree with the complaints as defined in the class action and would like to receive your portion of the money if there is a settlement. If you haven't gotten such a letter and you think you should have, it is a good idea to contact the law firm. How do you find the law firm? Usually some Googling on \"\"class action\"\" and the name of the defendant company will get you there. Also, check the legal section of the classifieds of the local newspaper, they sometimes advertise them there. Typically they aren't hard to find because it is in the law firm's best interest to have everyone sign on to their class action for a number of reasons including: If you have a lot of people who are supposedly aggrieved, it makes the defendant look more likely to be guilty, and more participants can equate to higher settlement amounts (for which the law firm gets a percentage). That is why you see non-stop ads on daytime TV for lawyers marketing class action cases and looking for people who took this drug, or had that hip implant. Once a settlement occurs and you are a member of that class, there are a number of ways you might get your piece including: - A credit to your account. - A check in the mail. - A coupon or some other consideration for your damages (lame) - A promise that they will stop doing the bad thing and maybe some changes (in your favor) on the terms of your account. A final note: Don't get your hopes up. The lawyers are usually the only ones who make any substantial money from these things, not the class members. I've been paid settlements from lots of these things and it is rare for it to be more than $25, but the time the spoils are divided. I've gotten NUMEROUS settlements where my share was less than a dollar. There are some decent resources on ClassAction.com, but beware that although the site has some good information, it is primarily just an ad for a lawfirm. Also, note that I am not affiliated with that site nor can I vouch for any information contained there. They are not an impartial source, so understand that when reading anything on there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "98b98dfa802d4a67b1e02622350ccd46", "text": "I wouldn't want to have a house no matter where I live. So I am more than OK with always living in an apartment. We live in a really nice place right now. My husband is pretty up-to-date on how the country is running and he would be telling me if he were at all concerned about the state of things. Which he isn't... at least not anymore than when I first met him. So, while I am sure that I will always be middle class... I am OK with that. And perhaps Americans do earn 20% more than Germans but they also pay a lot more for things that Germans do not pay as much for. Edit: Also, my husband's grandfather was one of the leading historians in germany until he died in 2009. His grandparents were very well off. His parents were poor while he grew up. My husband is on his way to being a partner in an expanding business (he does programming) and his brother is a Pharmacist. By this time in a year or so from now the amount of money my husband earns will double.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
21932a93bdda9ab9dd40cb89c2cde0f7	How do I know if my mutual fund is compounded?	[ { "docid": "8ab3bc3c38c15fb82ad7fb9b1fc2e8d1", "text": "\"When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval. However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110. In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval. If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment. By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your \"\"compounding\"\" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f5712c11a97266c6e2a9309ec306d034", "text": "You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.", "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": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0", "text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdcf05dafe8669ec0c776f77e15f1190", "text": "Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.", "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": "046ecaa7a1cf3caaa077dc7b109211f5", "text": "Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c67b26d48377b74b8f3413e9368ceb5b", "text": "Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c494dcd840d2745ce16e87fa41921a5", "text": "For mine, that info's in the quarterly reports... and in the prospectus, which you should be looking at before you put money into the fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5afc4eeaf29e1e7918d70f8a8907bc3", "text": "Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6368a3b1a6a2362b45d333926f9e2f72", "text": "When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "75f914274e0dd57bcb5f30258ce50a8c", "text": "One estimate is to sell today, estimate the taxes, and determine how much cash you need to set aside over the next 12 months. The is no way to calculate what impact dividends and capital gains the funds will have, because unlike interest they aren't guaranteed. The other complexity is that the funds themselves could drop in value. In that case the dividends and capital gains may not even be enough to get you back to even. I use mutual funds to invest over the long term, with the idea of spending the funds over decades. When needing to save for a short term goal, I use banking products. They are guaranteed not to lose value, and the interest changes are slowerand thus easier to predict.", "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": "ab9d23b9c64bf48c909c67f1f807bef8", "text": "\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f4b4c9c8645edfa232b9beab747db47", "text": "\"This post may be old anyhow here's my 2 cents. Real world...no. Compounding is overstated. I have 3 mutual funds, basically index funds, you can go look them up. vwinx, spmix, spfix in 11 years i've made a little over 12,000 on 50,000 invested. That averages 5%. That's $1,200 a year about. Not exactly getting rich on the compounding \"\"myth?\"\". You do the math. I would guess because overly optimistic compounding gains are based on a straight line gains. Real world...that aint gonna happen.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f3c87da7cc52e6d91695081713a8d9d", "text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a4ee34f62026ca06b776850ee13afa56	Buy or sell futures contracts	[ { "docid": "796e59cd78f34a9c70642f63ecf4b371", "text": "\"Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date). It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 \"\"lot\"\" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity. The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December. You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant. If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract. Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is \"\"open\"\" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a \"\"good faith deposit\"\" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations. This deposit is usually called \"\"initial margin\"\". Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract. So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500. The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called \"\"variation margin\"\". The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract. If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations. Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items. In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account. So in some sense \"\"you don't have to pay anything upfront\"\", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c22523023bff08af8133c15b5adbeab", "text": "We struck a deal. I sold an asset to some body on june 1 . However he says, he would pay me any time on or before august 1st . This puts me in a dilemma. What if price goes down by august 1st and i would have to accept lower payment from him.? If price goes up till august 1st, then obviously i make money since ,even though item is sold,price is yet to be fixed between parties. However i know anytime on or before august 1st, i would get paid the price quoted on that particular day. This price could be high in my favor, or low against me. And, this uncertainty is causing me sleepless nights. i went to futures market exchange. My item (sugar,gold,wheat,shares etc..anything). i short sell a futures which just happens to be equivalent to the quantity of my amount i sold to the acquirer of my item. I shorted at $ 100 , with expiry on august 1st. Now fast orward and august 1st comes. price is $ 120 quoted . lets Get paid from the guy who was supposed to pay on or before august 1st. He pays 120 $. his bad luck, he should have paid us 100 $ on june 1st instead of waiting for august 1st . His judgement of price movement faulted. WE earned 20 $ extra than we expected to earn on june 1st (100$) . However the futures short of 100$ is now 120$ and you must exit your position by purchasing it at back. sell at 100$ and buy at 120$ = loss of 20$ . Thus 20 $ gained from selling item is forwarded to exchange . Thus we had hedged our position on june 1st and exit the hedge by august 1st. i hope this helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83ce1b5e977862952bf765e2bcea55ad", "text": "\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "042f2ff7f584f4b17f0df4146c750c9e", "text": "Futures contracts are a member of a larger class of financial assets called derivatives. Derivatives are called such because their payoffs depend on the price of other assets (financial or real). Other kinds of derivatives are call options, put options. Fixed income assets that mimic the behavior of derivatives are callable bonds, puttable bonds etc. A futures contract is a contract that specifies the following: Just like with any other contract, there are two parties involved. One party commits to delivering the underlying asset to the other party on expiration date in exchange for the futures price. The other party commits to paying the futures price in exchange for the asset. There is no price that any of the two parties pay upfront to engage in the contract. The language used is so that the agent committing to receiving the delivery of the underlying asset is said to have bought the contract. The agent that commits to make the delivery is said to have sold the contract. So answer your question, buying on June 1 a futures contract at the futures price of $100, with a maturity date on August 1 means you commit to paying $100 for the underlying asset on August 1. You don't have to pay anything upfront. Futures price is simply what the contract prescribes the underlying asset will exchange hands for.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "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": "ff16b9f0dd72969ca788f9ce877a97c2", "text": "@Tim - in this case, a futures contract isn't like an options contract. It's simply a method of entering into an agreement for delivery at a future date. While the speculators appear to have taken over, there are practical examples of use of the futures market. I am a gold miner and I see that my cost is $1200/oz given my quality of ore. I see the price of gold at $1600 and instead of worrying that if it goes too low, I run at a loss, I take advantage and sell contracts to match my production for the next year (or as long as the contracts go, I forget how far out gold futures are). Of course I give up the higher price if gold goes higher, but this scenarion isn't speculation, it's a business decision. The bread maker, on the other hand, might buy wheat futures to guarantee his prices for the next year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b8859ddba80c7dc3f4ac1688e17a7e4", "text": "Yahoo Finance doesn't offer this functionality; I remember looking for this exact feature a couple of years ago for coffee futures. Your best option is to look at the futures chain. However, Yahoo Finance's future chains aren't always complete, since you'll notice that the futures chain for NYMEX crude oil omit the June contract. The contract still exists, but Yahoo doesn't list it in its own futures chain or in the future chain for May.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5551e1d6c53d78ac4f021ce3d5c4c4b4", "text": "I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41d3a9dacac7a4016af8e209ec7fe579", "text": "Yahoo finance does in fact have futures quotes. But I've found them difficult to search for because you also have to know the expiration codes for the contract to find them. S&P 500 Emini quote for June 2012", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8331c07f3c8f33cb5083b8dd9bff0e5e", "text": "The owner of a long futures contract does not receive dividends, hence this is a disadvantage compared to owning the underlying stock. If the dividend is increased, and the future price would not change, there is an arbitrage possibility. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the stock suddenly starts paying a dividend, and that the risk free rate is zero (so interest does not play a role). One can expect that the future price is (rougly) equal to the stock price before the dividend announcment. If the future price would not change, an investor could buy the stock, and short a futures contract on the stock. At expiration he has to deliver the stock for the price set in the contract, which is under the assumptions here equal to the price he bought the stock for. But because he owned the stock, he receives the announced dividend. Hence he can make a risk-free profit consisting of the divivends. If interest do play a role, the argument is similar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb0299e0e2742cda3ef07689492964a8", "text": "I used to trade power for a closed end hedge fund. Yes, weather derivatives are very important. They help power traders / utilities hedge for unaccountable variables, IE weather. For example, lets say it costs a utility $50 an hour to produce power for the load when it is 80 degrees outside. Lets say I trade the contract with them to guarantee the weather will be under 80 degrees. If the weather is higher than 80 degrees, more people turn in their AC, the load on the grid goes up, and the utility has to start generating power at $70 an hour. Under this contract, I would be liable to pay the utility the net difference in their cost (the additional $20 per hour they generate per mw). In that case I am a loser. If the power comes in under 80 degrees, I make money as I priced (sold) the contract at a premium according to the risk I calulated for offereing the contract. This has many many applications, but yes, its not a weird thing to trade. Hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fafc56dda600d9877d4682204c7108a", "text": "\"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74f26d63f018d5a9aa01c4fbd8a7689c", "text": "Concerning the Broker: eToro is authorized and registered in Cyprus by the Cyprus Securities Exchange Commission (CySEC). Although they are regulated by Cyprus law, many malicious online brokers have opened shop there because they seem to get along with the law while they rip off customers. Maybe this has changed in the last two years, personally i did not follow the developments. eToro USA is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and thus doing business in a good regulated environment. Of course the CFTC cannot see into the future, so some black sheep are getting fined and even their license revoked every now and then. It has no NFA Actions: http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/Details.aspx?entityid=45NH%2b2Upfr0%3d Concerning the trade instrument: Please read the article that DumbCoder posted carefully and in full because it contains information you absolutely have to have if you are to do anything with Contract for difference (CFD). Basically, a CFD is an over the counter product (OTC) which means it is traded between two parties directly and not going through an exchange. Yes, there is additional risk compared to the stock itself, mainly: To trade a CFD, you sign a contract with your broker, which in almost all cases allows the broker A CFD is just a derivative financial instrument which allows speculating / investing in an asset without trading the actual asset itself. CFDs do not have to mirror the underlying asset's price and price movement and can basically have any price because the broker quotes you independently of the underlying. If you do not know how all this works and what the instrument / vehicle actually is and how it works; and do not know what to look for in a broker, please do not trade it. Do yourself a favor and get educated, inform yourself, because otherwise your money will be gone fast. Marketing campaigns such as this are targeted at people who do not have the knowledge required and thus lose a significant portion (most of the time all) of their deposits. Answer to the actual question: No, there is no better way. You can by the stock itself, or a derivative based on it. This means CFDs, options or futures. All of them require additional knowledge because they work differently than the stock. TL;DR: DumbCoder is absolutely right, do not do it if you do not know what it is about. EDIT: Revisiting this answer and reading the other answers, i realize this sounds like derivatives are bad in general. This is absolutely not the case, and i did not intend it to sound this way. I merely wanted to emphasize the point that without sufficient knowledge, trading such products is a great risk and in most cases, should be avoided.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8ae6f768d8dcfb58a1b2409faa1224d", "text": "\"There's a market for single stock futures. The market (however small) is OneChicago, \"\"an Equity Finance Exchange offering security futures products.\"\" I don't know how easy access is for retail investors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d2e0573d0cc917b52c7b308c9e9f620", "text": "When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c99f0ed816dcf4f6b31cdb8f548f0df", "text": "Don't really know much about futures but I'll give you a couple of options: Assuming that you are just looking around right now about currency investing, are you sure (I mean, really sure) that you want to do it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "493304a22f28af6cb8a83c6a35984166", "text": "You would appear to be a swing trader, like myself. I have been trading futures and futures options for 29 years, and have both made and lost a lot of money in that time. My trades last hours, to days, to at most a few weeks. From my experience, the most important skills are: 1) Money management - keeping trade size small in relation to total capital. I typically risk 2-3% of my capital on a trade, so a loss is fairly immaterial. 2) Risk management - limit your loss on every trade, either by using stop orders, options, or a combination of these 2. 3) Emotional discipline - be prepared to exit a position, or reverse from long to short, or short to long, on a moment's notice. The market doesn't care where you entered, or whether you make or lose money. Don't let your hunches or the news influence your decisions, but follow the market. 4) Methodology discipline - test your analysis / trade entry method to ensure that it is objective, and has a reasonably good probability of success, then stick with it. Variation will inevitably lead to indecision or emotional reactions. 5) Flexibility - consider trading anything which can make you a profit, but ensure that there is a lot of liquidity. I trade 30 different futures markets, as well as various option writing strategies in these markets. Feel free to reach out if you want to discuss further. I have about 500 (yes, 500) trading e-books as well, on every trading subject you can think of.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df3ba61964ad73d3b460b90526748266", "text": "No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cbcc2d72fd579c88e0d29696cf6d16a", "text": "It depends on how immediately you think you'll need your emergency fund cash: If you anticipate running into problems where you need cash right away (e.g. you live paycheck to paycheck, and your car breaks down a lot), put it into a checking or money market account. If you don't think your emergencies will require immediate access to cash (e.g. unemployment), then put it in a savings account or CD. If there is a lot of money in your accounts that goes unused, and you want a bigger safety net, then consider investing it. Though it's generally a better idea to pay off debts at this point. I think the best idea is to split your emergency fund between your checking and savings. Maybe 20% checking and 80% savings. That way, you have some extra cash on hand when you need it, while most of your money is growing in savings.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
be1890fe615bf244d393146b3918520c	ESPP: Share vs Payroll withholding	[ { "docid": "ab4e8f980720ba23c8a6f3b80ca1a3cf", "text": "Note that you're asking about withholding, not about taxing. Withholding doesn't mean this is exactly the tax you'll pay: it means they're withholding a certain amount to make sure you pay taxes on it, but the tax bill at the end of the year is the same regardless of how you choose to do the withholding. Your tax bill may be higher or lower than the withholding amount. As far as tax rate, that will be the same regardless - you're just moving the money from one place to the other. The only difference would be that your tax is based on total shares under the plan - meaning that if you buy 1k shares, for example, at $10, so $1,500 discounted income, if you go the payroll route you get (say) $375 withheld. If you go the share route, you either get $375 worth of stock (so 38 shares) withheld (and then you would lose out on selling that stock, meaning you don't get quite as much out of it at the end) or you would ask them to actually buy rather more shares to make up for it, meaning you'd have a slightly higher total gain. That would involve a slightly higher tax at the end of it, of course. Option 1: Buy and then sell $10000 worth, share-based withholding. Assuming 15% profit, and $10/share at both points, then buy/sell 1000 shares, $1500 in profit to take into account, 38 shares' worth (=$380) withheld. You put in $8500, you get back $9620, net $1120. Option 2: Buy and then sell $13500 worth, share based withholding. Same assumptions. You make about $2000 in pre-tax profit, meaning you owe about $500 in tax withholding. Put in $11475, get back $13000, net $1525. Owe 35% more tax at the end of the year, but you have the full $1500 to spend on whatever you are doing with it. Option 3: Buy and then sell $1000 worth, paycheck withholding. You get the full $10000-$8500 = $1500 up front, but your next paycheck is $375 lighter. Same taxes as Option 1 at the end of the year.", "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": "9b78c0943dfcaac7e33e2f04c6f1e823", "text": "I have an ESPP with ETrade; you can transfer stock like that via a physical (paper) asset-transfer form. Look for one of those, and if you can't find it, call your brokerage (or email / whatever). You own the shares, so you can generally do what you want with them. Just be very careful about recording all the purchase and transfer information so that you can deal properly with the taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce5d619eaed53c079cb9c16c785f478a", "text": "Some other answers mention the ability to sell at grant. This is very important. If you have that ability, think about your guaranteed return. In my case, I get a 15% discount on the lowest 6 month window price from the last two years. If you do the math, the worst case return can be calculated: 1) Money that from the beginning of the window, I make 15% for 6 months (30% annual return guaranteed) 2) Money at the end of the window (say the last month) is 15% for one month (180% annual return guaranteed) In the end, your average holding window for your money is about 3 months (you can calculate it exactly). At that rate, you have a guaranteed 60% annual return. You can't beat that anywhere, with a significant upside if your company stock is increasing. So, if your company has an instant sell at grant option, you have to be brain dead not to do it. If it takes time to get your shares, then you need to look at the volatility of the stock to see how big the chance of losing money is. To generalize to a formula (if that's what you want): WM = purchase window (in months); D = Discount Percentage; GR = Guaranteed Return GR = 12/(WM/2) D = 6*D/WM One last thing, If you are going to participate in ESPP, make you that you understand how to do your taxes yourself. I haven't found a tax person yet who does ESPP correctly (including an ex IRS agent), so I always have to do my taxes myself to make sure they get done correctly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "559b05e48a817e0e9841d2cc181a9a71", "text": "\"You are confusing entirely unrelated things. First the \"\"profit distribution\"\" issue with Bob's S-Corp which is in fact tax evasion and will probably trigger a very nasty audit. Generally, if you're the sole employee of your own S-Corp, and the whole S-Corp income is from your own personal services, as defined by the IRS - there's no profit there. All the net income from such a S-Corp is subject to SE tax, either through payroll or through your K-1. Claiming anything else would be lying and IRS is notorious for going after people doing that. Second - the reclassification issue. The reason employers classify employees as contractors is to avoid payroll taxes (which the IRS gets through Bob's S-Corp, so it doesn't care) and providing benefits (that is Bob's problem, not the IRS). So in the scenario above, the IRS wouldn't care whose employee Bob is since Bob's S-Corp would have to pay all the same payroll taxes. The reclassification is an issue when employees are abused. See examples of Fedex drivers, where they're classified as contractors and are not getting any benefits, spend their own money on the truck and maintenance, etc. The employees are the ones who sued for reclassification, but in this case the IRS would be interested as well since a huge chunk of payroll taxes was not paid (driver's net is after car maintenance and payments, not before as it would be if he was salaried). So in your scenario reclassification is not as much a concern to Bob as his tax evasion scheme claiming earnings from performing personal services as \"\"profits from S-Corp\"\". A precedent to look at, as I mentioned elsewhere, would be the Watson v Commissioner case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3275902f1c0f9720de7ffcf33556f77", "text": "\"The shares are \"\"imputed income\"\" / payment in kind. You worked in the UK, but are you a \"\"US Person\"\"? If not, you should go back to payroll with this query as this income is taxable in the UK. It is important you find out on what basis they were issued. The company will have answers. Where they aquired at a discount to fair market value ? Where they purchased with a salary deduction as part of a scheme ? Where they acquired by conversion of employee stock options ? If you sell the shares, or are paid dividends, then there will be tax withheld.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8dd55b46d9c07218fb9f8baf97aa6c57", "text": "There is Free employer money on both sides of the tax fence for some employees. On the pretax side, your employer may provide you a match. If so, invest the maximum to get 100% of the match. On the after tax side, many companies offers a 15% discount on ESPP plans and a one year hold. My wife has such an employer. The one year hold is fine because it allows us to be taxed at Long Term Capital gains if the stock goes up which is lower than our current income bracket. After creating a seasoned pool of stocks that we could sell after the one year hold, we are then able to sell the same number of stocks purchased each month. This provides a 17.6% guaranteed gain on a monthly basis. How much would you purchase if you had a guaranteed 17.6% return. Our answer is 15% (our maximum allowed). The other trick is that while the employer is collecting the money, you will purchase the stock at the lowest day of the period. You will usually sell for even more than the purchase price unless the day purchased was the lowest day of month. The trick is to reinvest the money in tax free investments to balance out the pretax investing. Never leave the money in the plan. That is too much risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e55b9e38a7bc2e8300c9d6d1f3214e7", "text": "As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19fe77440918b8642bbfb0395917e03c", "text": "\"Employers withhold at rates specified in Circular E issued by the IR. You can request that additional money be withheld (not an issue here) or you can have reduced withholding by claiming additional allowances on a W-4 (i.e., more than just for you and spouse and dependents) if you believe that this will result in withholding that will more closely match the tax due. (Note added in edit):Page 2 of the W-4 form has worksheets that can be used to figure out how many additional allowances to request. Also, I wonder if your withholding will be 37% or final tax bill be 26% of your adjusted gross income. The tax brackets are the tax on marginal income. If you are in the 28% tax bracket, you owe 28 cents in tax for each additional dollar of income, not 28 cents in tax for every dollar of income. Your overall tax might well be less than 20% of your income. As a specific example, in 2011 a married taxpayer filing jointly would be in the (highest) 35% tax bracket if the taxable income was $379,150 or more (marginal tax rate of 35% is applicable to every dollar more than $379,150) but the tax on $379,150 itself works out to be $102,574 or 27.05% of the taxable income. So if you do expect to be earning around $350K or more in salary between now and December 31 to hit that 26% that you expect you will owe, you might want to consider paying a tax accountant for advice on how to fill out your W-4 form for your new employer rather than relying on an Internet forum such as this for free advice. Note added in edit: Your comment \"\"... it is a cocktail of ... federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, health care ...\"\" on the earlier version of my answer does raise the question of whether you want your employer to withhold 26% instead of 37% and have the money go to meet all these obligations or just 26% towards your Federal income tax liability only. The Federal W-4 form affects only how much money is withheld from your paycheck and sent to the US Treasury. Some of the money that each of your employers withholds (Social Security and Medicare taxes) is not affected by what you put down on the W-4 form. Now, if you hold two jobs and the total income shown on your W-2s is larger than the SS limit, you will have had too much Social Security taxes withheld, and the excess will be a credit towards your Federal income tax liability. You have self-employment income too on which you owe Social Security and Medicare taxes and you are making estimated tax payments. The excess Social Security tax payment can count towards this too (as well as income tax on your Schedule C income). Thus, if your new employer is withholding too much, you might be able to skip making the fourth quarterly payment of estimated tax or make a reduced payment (there is no requirement that the four installments must be equal). In short, there are lots of ramifications that you need to take into account before deciding that 26% is the right number. Instead of filling out a W-4 all by yourself right away, I strongly recommend reading up a lot on income taxes, or play with a tax preparation program (last year's version will do a pretty good job of at least getting you in the right ballpark), or consult with a tax accountant.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "622d9efc9997fa5f88883a7f7a3621cc", "text": "ESPP tax treatment is complicated. If you received a discount on the purchase of your stock, that discount is taxable as ordinary income when you sell the stock. Any profit about the market value when the stock was purchased is taxed based upon the holding period of the stock. If you have held the stock less than a year, the profit is taxed at your marginal tax rate (ie taxed as ordinary income). If the stock is held for more than a year, it is taxed at a special capital gains tax rate, which ranges from 0-20% depending on your marginal tax rate (most people pay 15%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7912721aeec16df874e5977ea2a9eaa0", "text": "Here's an article on it that might help: http://thefinancebuff.com/restricted-stock-units-rsu-sales-and.html One of the tricky things is that you probably have the value of the vested shares and withheld taxes already on your W-2. This confuses everyone including the IRS (they sent me one of those audits-by-mail one year, where the issue was they wanted to double-count stock compensation that was on both 1099-B and W-2; a quick letter explaining this and they were happy). The general idea is that when you first irrevocably own the stock (it vests) then that's income, because you're receiving something of value. So this goes on a W-2 and is taxed as income, not capital gains. Conceptually you've just spent however many dollars in income to buy stock, so that's your basis on the stock. For tax paid, if your employer withheld taxes, it should be included in your W-2. In that case you would not separately list it elsewhere.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76ba232784fe8f7278b91b3212d6596d", "text": "You didn't give enough information. What is your goal? What is your financial situation? A discount to buy company stock can seem very tempting. I was tempted by it myself, gee, almost 20 years ago. I still own some of the stock. But I held mutual funds first. There are two disadvantages that have disuaded me from partaking in the ESPP of my subsequent employers (one of which was a spin-out company of the stock-issuing company, the other having bought the spin-out). First, putting a bunch of money in a single stock is rather risky. single stocks will drop dramatically due to market conditions. Generally market conditions don't act so dramatically on all stock. Second, is it wise to put not only your salary but also your saved wealth all in one basket? It worked out reasonably well for me. The stock doubled right before my division was spun out -- I sold half of my position. And the resulting stock has continued to provide opportunities to diversify. However, it could have just as easily dropped in half instead of doubled. What is your timeline for holding the stock -- for realizing any gain? Can you afford patience if the stock value should drop in half? I have co-workers who continue to invest through our new company's ESPP. At least one co-worker has the stated goal to sell after every purchase -- he holds the stock long enough to make a long-term gain instead of short term, but he sells after every purchase. And it seems to him that the stock always drops right when he wants to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93776e97161db6adb6be392a79bbf102", "text": "At the most basic level, the employee is getting a share of ownership in the company and would get a percentage of the sales price. That said, as littleadv alluded to, different share classes have different priorities and get paid in different orders. In a bankruptcy, for example, some classes almost never get paid in practice because they are so far down the ladder of priority. The first step you should take would be to try to clarify what you are getting with the company itself. Failing that, contact a financial professional or an attorney in your area who can read the terms and give you a better understanding of the contract before you sign.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "493fff5992da61579f6f8f74553419bf", "text": "\"This has to do with the type of plan offered: is it a 401(k) plan or a profit-sharing plan, or both? If it's 401(k) I believe the IRS will see this distribution as elective and count towards the employee's annual elective contribution limit. If it's profit sharing the distribution would be counted toward the employer's portion of the limit. However -- profit sharing plans have a formula that's standard across the board and applied to all employees. i.e. 3% of company profits given equally to all employees. One of the benefits of the profit sharing plans is also that you can use a vesting schedule. I'd consult your accountant to see how this specifically impacts your business - but in the case you describe this sounds like an elective deferral choice by an employee and I don't see how (or why) you'd make this decision for them. Give them the bonus and let them choose how it's paid out. Edit: in re-reading your question it actually sounds like you're wanting to setup a profit sharing type situation - but again, heed what I said above. You decide the amount of \"\"profit\"\" - but you also have to set an equation that applies across the board. There is more complication to it than this brief explanation and I'd consult your accountant to see how it applies in your situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "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": "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": "" } ]	fiqa
fad762e169e29924fdb5f6d0c35c3495	What are Vanguard's Admiral Shares?	[ { "docid": "524c23a6c5119818456cf14353b617db", "text": "\"Vanguard's Admiral shares are like regular (\"\"investor\"\") shares in their funds, only they charge lower expense ratios. They have higher investment minimums, though. (For instance, the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund has a minimum of $3,000 and an expense ratio of .18% for the Investor Shares class, but a minimum of $10,000 and an expense ratio of .07% for Admiral Shares). If you've bought a bunch of investor shares and now meet the (recently-reduced) minimum for Admiral shares, or if you have some and buy some more investor shares in the future and meet the minimums, you will qualify for a free, no-tax-impact conversion to the Admiral Shares and save yourself some money. For more information, see the Vanguard article on their recent changes to Admiral Shares minimums. Vanguard also offers institutional-class shares with even lower expense ratios than that (with a minimum of $5 million, .06% expense ratios on the same fund). A lot of the costs of operating a fund are per-individual, so they don't need to charge you extra fees for putting in more money after a certain point. They'd rather be competitive and offer it at cost. Vanguard's funds typically have very low expense ratios to begin with. (The investor shares I've been using as an example are advertised as \"\"84% lower than the average expense ratio of funds with similar holdings\"\".) In fact, Vanguard's whole reason for existing is the premise (stated in founder John C Bogle's undergraduate thesis at Princeton) that individuals can generally get better returns by investing in a cheap fund that tracks an index than by investing in mutual funds that try to pick stocks and beat the index and charge you a steep markup. The average real return of the stock market is supposedly something like 4%; even a small-looking percentage like 1% can eat a big portion of that. Over the course of 40 years waiting for retirement, saving 1% on expenses could leave you with something like 50% more money when you've retired. If you are interested in the lower expense ratios of the Admiral share classes but cannot meet the minimums, note that funds which are available as ETFs can be traded from Vanguard brokerage accounts commission-free and typically charge the same expense ratios as the Admiral shares without any minimums (but you need to trade them as individual shares, and this is less convenient than moving them around in specific dollar amounts).\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cc493cfe1797cefdcc73b62863b7e062", "text": "The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.", "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": "4b6b44831c59cf35dcdf3a81a0cb0e62", "text": "Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f733c669f45268778a0bccf62fb4aab9", "text": "Vanguard has a lot of mutual fund offerings. (I have an account there.) Within the members' section they give indications of the level of risk/reward for each fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5a4255cf0e80dd0024fc006c4b6e0da", "text": "Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12226cbcd9d23ce4d27dc0efef65eece", "text": "Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "624d64de9d677b3001fe738a4e116cac", "text": "\"One other thing to consider, particularly with Vanguard, is the total dollar amount available. Vanguard has \"\"Admiralty\"\" shares of funds which offer lower expense ratios, around 15-20% lower, but require a fairly large investment in each fund (often 10k) to earn the discounted rate. It is a tradeoff between slightly lower expense ratios and possibly a somewhat less diverse holding if you are relatively early in your savings and only have say 20-30k (which would mean 2 or 3 Admiralty share funds only).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca3cf0140f34ac6c9cd6621379c2367", "text": "In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6aa7994d1eb6dfbbd1f75c1cafa06219", "text": "A general mutual fund's exact holdings are not known on a day-to-day basis, and so technical tools must work with inexact data. Furthermore, the mutual fund shares' NAV depends on lots of different shares that it holds, and the results of the kinds of analyses that one can do for a single stock must be commingled to produce something analogous for the fund's NAV. In other words, there is plenty of shooting in the dark going on. That being said, there are plenty of people who claim to do such analyses and will gladly sell you their results (actually, Buy, Hold, Sell recommendations) for whole fund families (e.g. Vanguard) in the form of a monthly or weekly Newsletter delivered by US Mail (in the old days) or electronically (nowadays). Some people who subscribe to such newsletters swear by them, while others swear at them and don't renew their subscriptions; YMMV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e94e5d41bae9c399526f9811866f985", "text": "It's quite alright, it's been over a decade since he passed so I'm not particularly sensitive about it any more. I'll have a look at investopedia, but what I'm mainly interested in is private equity. I wanted to ask directly about that, but I feel that I need a frame of reference to understand what's going on. As in, I doubt I'd be able to really get private equity without first having an understanding of public trading. Is this subreddit really that reputable? I've learned to not really trust reddit, for the most part. Is there some kind of curation here?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9135489743af61cdf9390bf6255e5be", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.philly.com/philly/business/vanguard-got-everything-it-ever-wanted-now-what-20170717.html) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) *** > I think it&#039;s safe to say that 40 years after Vanguard founder John Bogle set out to convince investors that low-cost indexing is better, Vanguard has won the argument. > As Bloomberg News reported last week, Vanguard is facing &quot;a rise in customer complaints such as accounting errors and longer wait times on phone calls.&quot; No one should take for granted that Vanguard will be able to handle its surging popularity. > Vanguard is the best thing that ever happened to investors. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6o5kzr/vanguard_got_everything_it_ever_wanted_now_what/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~170145 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: Vanguard^#1 investors^#2 year^#3 During^#4 fund^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "136a3319c5a9aa18f28e1dc9a86d035d", "text": "If you are looking for an index index fund, I know vanguard offers their Star fund which invests in 11 other funds of theirs and is diversified across stocks, bonds, and short term investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d96ffa27caec8d874570b6eff6a9c68", "text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2051b0442778b10df3a99b7fb3ac4b96", "text": "\"That share class may not have a ticker symbol though \"\"Black Rock MSCI ACWI ex-US Index\"\" does have a ticker for \"\"Investor A\"\" shares that is BDOAX. Some funds will have multiple share classes that is a way to have fees be applied in various ways. Mutual fund classes would be the SEC document about this if you want a government source within the US around this. Something else to consider is that if you are investing in a \"\"Fund of funds\"\" is that there can be two layers of expense ratios to consider. Vanguard is well-known for keeping its expenses low.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fda66bb0929be3aa8ee4b742f7553311", "text": "I take the route of the tortoise. I subscribe to the adage that you invest in an excellent index fund like VFINX and forget about day trading and trying to make short term gains. Just like I would do at a casino I do gamble a bit for fun. Using etrade you can purchase some Vanguard or a billion of other things. I purchased some Apple, Google, Verizon, and Ford (when it was at 1.3) and all of those have been good investments. However, I don't invest the majority of my money in to individual stocks. I just do this with some 'play' money. After maxing out 401k, etc. I put away my 6 months of safety net in a money mark and put the rest in Vanguard.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7f14e13da0da1e5f6b069cca6717efb1	Is an RRSP always “self-directed”? What makes a “self-directed” RRSP special?	[ { "docid": "bebdffa621cee1739febb1d9e64befff", "text": "The term self-directed generally refers to RRSP accounts where the account holder has not only the ability to determine a basic investment asset mix (such as can be accomplished even with a limited selection of mutual funds) but, more specifically, the self-directed account holder has a much wider choice of financial instruments beyond mutual funds, GICs, and/or cash savings. A self-directed RRSP generally permits the account holder to also invest or trade directly in financial instruments such as: Those kinds of instruments are not typically available in a non-self-directed mutual fund or bank RRSP. Typical mutual fund or bank RRSPs offer you only their choice of products – often with higher fees attached. Related resources:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7e6d7849a72dd09bd6e94185741f837a", "text": "The Globe and Mail has an interesting article on what you can do with your RRSPs. Be aware that the article is from early 2011 and rules change. They describe holding your own mortgage inside your RRSP. That is, if you have $100,000 inside your RRSP already and your remaining mortgage is $100,000, you can use that money to pay off your mortgage, then pay back the money at interest, generating a tax-deferred profit inside your RRSP. That approach may be viable, though you'd want to talk to your accountant first. I'd be very cautious about loaning money to someone else for a second mortgage using my RRSP, though. Second mortgages are inherently risky, so this is a very speculative investment. Once you make an RRSP contribution, that space is used up (barring a couple of exceptions such as the life-long learning plan). So, let's say you used $100,000 of your RRSP to loan to someone for a second mortgage. Any interest payments should be sheltered inside the RRSP (substantial benefit), but if the person defaults on the second mortgage (which you should expect to be a significant possibility), you've lost your entire $100,000 contribution room (as well as, obviously, the $100,000 that you loaned out). I can't tell you whether or not it makes sense to invest in risky second-mortgage loans and I can't tell you whether, if you choose to do so, it definitely should be done inside an RRSP. There are substantial risks in the loan and there are both costs and benefits to doing so inside an RRSP. Hopefully, though, I've helped you understand the questions you should be asking yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "543c77aa450b85e7e2b668b6d1fb4690", "text": "The point of an RRSP is that you can put money in when you are paying a lot of taxes (maybe a 50% marginal rate) and take it out later when you are paying less taxes (maybe a 30% marginal rate.) You will thus end up with more money. Since you are not paying high taxes on your modest income, this aspect of an RRSP doesn't really apply to you. When the time comes that you start withdrawing from your RRSP, you will pay taxes on the entire withdrawal, both principal and interest. A TFSA on the other hand allows withdrawals (typically limited to some small number a year) without the principal or the interest being considered taxable income. That seems like a better approach for you. However, they are not very liquid - you can't deposit, withdraw, deposit, withdraw week after week. Look around for not-exactly-banks that offer higher interest rates than the banks do. Set up a TFSA with one, and put about 8k in it. (If you have time to investigate GICs, ETFs, and whatnot, fine, investigate that for a while and set up a TFSA that holds those.) Put the other 2k in a high-interest savings account from that institution. High interest will be between 1 and 2% which isn't very high, but oh well. Assuming you get some notice when you need to replace your car, you could withdraw from the TFSA to get that money. Or you might be lucky and need a car at a terrible time for dealers to sell cars, and get a great deal on a new car with a long warranty, something you could keep for another 15 or 20 years. If you could afford the loan payment then your savings could stick around for a rainier day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "263f0df2357af278570138ee70aab0e7", "text": "One can have a self-directed IRA. This is not like a Schwab, eTrade, etc IRA. It has a special type of custodian that knows how to manage it. I became aware of such an account as a way to purchase a rental property. There were two issues. The type of property I looked at wasn't anything a bank was willing to finance. And the rules regarding self dealing added a potential layer of expense as I technically could not perform the simplest of things for the property. For you, the obstacle looks like self-dealing. Any IRA can only be funded with cash or transfer/conversion from another IRA/401(k). I don't know how you would get the intelligent property into the IRA in the first place. Once you own a patent, or anything else, you can't sell it into the IRA. It's at times like this that member littleadv would suggest this is the time to talk to a pro before you do anything hazardous to your wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "552680443f9db7b91ef5cfc4eef326e6", "text": "\"For an RRSP, you do not have to pay taxes on money or investments until you withdraw the money. If you do not reinvest the dividends but instead, take them out as cash, that would be withdrawing the money. For mutual funds, you would normally reinvest the dividends if holding the investment inside an RRSP. For stocks, I believe the dividends would end up sitting in the cash part of your RRSP account (and you'd probably use the money to buy more stocks, though would not be required to do so). Either way, you do not pay tax on this investment income unless you withdraw it from your RRSP. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your RRSP. You get the tax benefit from doing so. You get dividends of $1,000 (hey, it was a good year), and use these to buy more stock. As the money never left your RRSP account, you are considered to have invested only your initial $10,000. If instead, you withdraw the $1,000 in dividends, you are taxed on $1000 income. TFSA are slightly more complicated. You don't get a tax benefit from your initial contribution, but then do not pay tax when you withdraw from the TFSA. Your investment income is still tax-free, and you are (generally) much more limited in how much you can contribute. For example, you invest $10,000 inside your TFSA. You get dividends of $1,000, and use these to buy more stock. Your total contributions to your TFSA remains at $10,000 as the money never left your account. You could instead withdraw the $1000 from your TFSA and would not pay tax on it. In the next calendar year (or later) after the withdrawal, you could \"\"repay\"\" the $1000 you took out without suffering an overcontribution penalty. This makes TFSA an excellent place to park emergency funds, as you can withdraw and subsequently replace the investment while continuing to get the tax benefits on your investment income. RRSPs are better for retirement or for the home buyers plan. In general, you should not be withdrawing money from either your TFSA or RRSP, except in emergencies, when retiring, or when purchasing a home. I prefer indexed mutual funds or money market accounts for both my RRSP and TFSA rather than individual stocks, but that's up to you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99c560ff8a865296a2908cbc18ed8b0a", "text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce98800ddfa4c44fe836bcef62c53ab0", "text": "\"The primary tax-sheltered investing vehicles in Canada include: The RRSP. You can contribute up to 18% of your prior year's earned income, up to a limit ($24,930 in 2015, plus past unused contribution allowance) and receive an income tax deduction for your contributions. In an RRSP, investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. No tax is due until you begin withdrawals. When you withdraw funds, the withdrawn amount will be taxed at marginal income tax rates in effect at that time. The RRSP is similar to the U.S. \"\"traditional\"\" IRA, being an individual account with pre-tax contributions, tax-deferred growth, and ordinary tax rates applied to withdrawals. Yet, RRSPs have contribution limits higher than IRAs; higher, even, than U.S. 401(k) employee contribution limits. But, the RRSP is dissimilar to the IRA and 401(k) since an individual's annual contribution allowance isn't use-it-or-lose-it—unused allowance accumulates. The TFSA. Once you turn 18, you can put in up to $5,500 each year, irrespective of earned income. Like the RRSP, contribution room accumulates. If you were 18 in 2009 (when TFSAs were introduced) you'd be able to contribute $36,500 if you'd never contributed to one before. Unlike the RRSP, contributions to a TFSA are made on an after-tax basis and you pay no tax when you withdraw money. The post-tax nature of the TFSA and completely tax-free withdrawals makes them comparable to Roth-type accounts in the U.S.; i.e. while you won't get a tax deduction for contributing, you won't pay tax on earnings when withdrawn. Yet, unlike U.S. Roth-type accounts, you are not required to use the TFSA strictly for retirement savings—there is no penalty for pre-retirement withdrawal of TFSA funds. There are also employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) retirement pension plans. Generally, employees who participate in these kinds of plans have their annual RRSP contribution limits reduced. I won't comment on these kinds of plans other than to say they exist and if your employer has one, check it out—many employees lose out on free money by not participating. The under-appreciated RESP. Typically used for education savings. A lifetime $50,000 contribution limit per beneficiary, and you can put that all in at once if you're not concerned about maximizing grants (see below). No tax deduction for contributions, but investments grow on a tax-deferred basis. Original contributions can be withdrawn tax-free. Qualified educational withdrawals of earnings are taxed as regular income in the hands of the beneficiary. An RESP beneficiary is typically a child, and in a child's case the Canadian federal government provides matching grant money (called CESG) of 20% on the first $2500 contributed each year, up to age 18, to a lifetime maximum of $7200 per beneficiary. Grant money is subject to additional conditions for withdrawal. While RESPs are typically used to save for a child's future education, there's nothing stopping an adult from opening an RESP for himself. If you've never had one, you can deposit $50,000 of after-tax money to grow on a tax-deferred basis for up to 36 years ... as far as I understand. An adult RESP will not qualify for CESG. Moreover, if you use the RESP strictly as a tax shelter and don't make qualified educational withdrawals when the time comes, your original contributions still come out free of tax but you'll pay ordinary income tax plus 20% additional tax on the earnings portion. That's the \"\"catch\"\". However, if at that time you have accumulated sufficient RRSP contribution room, you may move up to $50,000 of your RESP earnings into your RRSP without any tax consequences (i.e. also avoiding the 20% additional tax) at time of transfer. Perhaps there's something above you haven't considered. Still, be sure to do your own due diligence and to consult a qualified, experienced, and conflict-free financial advisor for advice particular to your own situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96dd6e5df1c97fbe6e67dfe48966cbbf", "text": "It doesn't make much difference in the end. Imagine you have $100 of revenue in your company. You can either pay it to yourself as salary, meaning that you don't pay corporate tax on it, or you can keep it in the company, pay corporate tax on it, then pay yourself a dividend of what is left. While that dividend will be treated better than salary, remember that the company already paid tax on it. You paying less on what's left doesn't equate to paying less overall. Go ahead and run the numbers using your actual corporate tax rate and your personal income tax rate. Try doing your whole salary as dividends - not dollar for dollar, but as how much the company would have as profit to give you a dividend if it didn't spend (and deduct) salary money on you. You are unlikely to see any difference at all. The net final money in your pocket, and the amount that went to the government, will probably be the same. If paying dividends keeps your earned income low, you may find that you can't use RRSP or childcare deductions. You are also not getting CPP credit. That's an argument for salary, or at least a certain minimum amount of salary. You have to deduct taxes at source on salary and send it along to the government, which is an argument for dividends if you feel you could invest that money and use it well before the taxes get around to being due. Possibly you may discover an edge case where you move a few thousand from one marginal tax rate to another and clear a few hundred extra as a result. I don't discourage you from doing the math, I just point out that the various percentages (tax rates, grossups, deductions etc) have all been carefully chosen so that it pretty much works out the same, or gives a small preference to salary. We give excess money to ourselves as bonus rather than dividend having run the numbers a few times. There's no secret trick here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ca2d2b8b76b64ae83c126adcee29378", "text": "Depending on what state you live in in the United States, your Canadian brokerage may be able to sell products within the existing RRSP. I have an RRSP in Canada through TD Waterhouse and they infact just sent me a recent letter explaining that they are permitted to service my Canadian RRSP under the laws of Tennessee (where I live). The note went on to specifically state that they are not subject to the broker-dealer regulations of the US or the securities/regulations laws on the TN securities act. Furthermore, they state that Canadian RRSPs are not regulated under the securities laws of the US and the securities offered and sold to Canadian plans are exempt from registration with the SEC. When I call TD to do trades, I just ask for a Canada/US broker and that's who enters the sale for me. I declare my RRSP annually both to IRS under RRSP treaty and through FBAR reporting.", "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": "32ac818960c21a78d7a83f46630da254", "text": "I don't know about down there but up here in Canada, unless those companies have some track history, you ARE personally responsible. Or at least that's how I remember it; someone feel free to correct me... (Unless you were wise enough and had enough capital to begin with a shell company)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "661faa4d48f96d63ec1a4467fefc9842", "text": "The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc5ab13ec048f5bc308e798782c73ef4", "text": "\"Your question is based on incorrect assumptions. Generally, there's no \"\"penalty\"\", per se, to make a withdrawal from your RRSP, even if you make a withdrawal earlier than retirement, however you define it. A precise meaning for \"\"retirement\"\" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant.* Our U.S. neighbours have a 10% penalty on non-hardship early withdrawals (before age 59 &half;) from retirement accounts like the 401k and IRA. It's an additional measure designed to discourage early withdrawals, and raise more tax. Yet, in Canada, there is no similar penalty. Individual investments inside your RRSP may have associated penalties, such as the dreaded \"\"deferred sales charge\"\" (DSC) of some back-end loaded mutual funds, or such as LSVCC funds that generated additional special tax credits that could get clawed back. Yet, these early withdrawal penalties are distinct from the RRSP nature of your account. Choose your investments carefully to avoid these kinds of surprises. Rather, an RRSP is a tax-deferred account, and it works like this: The government allows you to claim a nice juicy tax deduction, which can reduce your income tax at your marginal rate in the year you make a contribution, or later if you should choose to defer the deduction. The resulting pre-tax money accumulated in your RRSP benefits from further tax deferral: assets can grow without attracting annual income tax on earned interest, dividends, or capital gains. You don't need to declare on your income tax return any of the income earned inside your RRSP, unlike a regular investment account. Here's the rub: Once you decide to withdraw money from your RRSP, the entire amount withdrawn is considered regular income in the year in which you make the withdrawal. Thus, your withdrawals are subject to income tax, and yes, at your marginal rate. This is always the case, whether before or after retirement. You mentioned two special programs: The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP), and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Neither the HBP nor the LLP permit tax-free withdrawals. Rather, each of these programs are special kinds of loans that you can borrow from your own RRSP. HBP and LLP loan money isn't taxed when you get it because you are required to pay it back, and you pay it back into your own RRSP: You always pay income tax at your marginal rate on your RRSP withdrawals.** * Above, I said a precise meaning for \"\"retirement\"\" with respect to RRSPs is largely irrelevant. Yet, there are ages that matter: By the end of the year in which you turn 71, you are required to convert your RRSP to a RRIF. It's similar, but you can no longer contribute, and you must withdraw a minimum amount each year. Other circumstances related to age may qualify for minor tax relief intended for retirees, such as the Age Amount or the Pension Income Credit. Generally, such measures don't significantly change the fact that you pay income tax on RRSP withdrawals at your marginal rate – these measures raise the minimum you can take out without attracting tax, but most do nothing at the margin. Exception: One might split eligible pension income with a spouse or common-law partner, which may reduce tax at the margin.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f82d9cfd265006df3469b07c2ecae28", "text": "If you withdraw money from an RRSP, you are taxed on that money as ordinary income and will have to pay withholding taxes, and potentially more income tax when you file. Additionally, you lose that contribution amount. If you subsequently deposit the same gross amount into another RRSP at a different bank, that will lower your taxable income for the year and you'll subsequently be able to recover the withholding taxes, but you will have permanently lost the contribution room. For example, you have $100,000 in RRSP contribution room. You buy $1,000 in RRSPs from Bank A. This leaves you with $99,000 in RRSP contribution room. Next year, you withdraw that $1,000 and deposit it in Bank B in an RRSP account. Now, you have $98,000 in RRSP contribution room. Chances are good that Bank A withheld 15% for taxes, but when you file your tax return, you'll get that back. Your withdrawal and subsequent purchase of RRSPs in the tax year cancel out. Far better is to transfer the RRSP from Bank A to Bank B. That has no tax implications and would not affect your RRSP contribution limit. Not all banks are willing to do this, though.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9e571d3faafece01575fa45d5434c7b1	GNUCash: How to count up equity?	[ { "docid": "1577e21bf4ad3391c4631197ed104014", "text": "I would say when starting with Gnucash to start with the level of granularity you are comfortable with while sticking to the double entry bookkeeping practices. So going through each one: Refund for Parking Pass. Assuming you treat the Parking Pass as a sunk cost, i.e. an Expense account, its just a negative entry in the Expense account which turns into a positive one in your Bank account. Yes it may look weird, and if you don't like it you can always 'pay from Equity' the prior month, or your Bank Account if you're backfilling old statements. Selling physical items. If you sold it on eBay and the value is high enough you'll get tax forms indicating you've earned x. Even if its small or not done via eBay, treat it the same way and create a 'Personal Items/Goods' Income account to track all of it. So the money you get in your Bank account would have come from there. Found jacket money would be an Equity entry, either Opening Balances into Cash or Bank account. Remember you are treating Equity / Opening Balances as the state before you started recording every transaction so both the value going into Assets (Banks,Stock,Mutual Funds) and Liabilities (Mortgage, Student Debt, Credit Card Debt) originate from there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2e80c349518ee93dd52768ec917fa84", "text": "I would take each of these items and any others and consider how you would count it as an expense in the other direction. If you have an account for parking expenses or general transportation funds, credit that account for a refund on your parking. If you have an account for expenses on technology purchases, you would credit that account if you sell a piece of equipment as you replace it with an upgrade. If you lost money (perhaps in a jacket) how would you account for the cash that is lost? Whatever account would would subtract from put a credit for cash found.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "76c035fbbf0e576a6f2bd374cab35523", "text": "\"The answer was provided to me at the Gnucash chat by \"\"warlord\"\". The procedure is as follows: After doing this you will have:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f60f3491884525065cfe44ca428df27", "text": "Gnucash uses aqbanking, so I'd suggest looking at aqbanking to see if it will do what you want. It seems to be actively developed (as of 26.2.2011), but the main page is in German and my German is a bit rusty... You might also try asking on the gnucash-users list.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c7eaa130ef48b436d0261060eaf23c20", "text": "If you're audited routinely you probably have an accountant to get this straight. It's not something that I would be too worried about as it is purely journal-entry issue, there's no problem with the actual money. Mistakes happen. I'd suggest converting the currency, taking loss/gain on the conversion as a capital loss/gain, and credit the correct currency to the correct account. If GnuCash causes problems - just record it in the EUR equivalent, putting in notes the actual SGD value. Note that I'm not an accountant and this is not a professional advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47ae96508ca08a01b1c2432172264fb7", "text": "I just decided to start using GnuCash today, and I was also stuck in this position for around an hour before I figured out what to do exactly. The answer by @jldugger pointed me partially on the right track, so this answer is intended to help people waste less time in the future. (Note: All numbers have been redacted for privacy issues, but I hope the images are sufficient to allow you to understand what is going on. ) Upon successfully importing your transactions, you should be able to see your transactions in the Checking Account and Savings Account (plus additional accounts you have imported). The Imbalance account (GBP in my case) will be negative of whatever you have imported. This is due to the double-entry accounting system that GnuCash uses. Now, you will have to open your Savings Account. Note that except for a few transactions, most of them are going to Imbalance. These are marked out with the red rectangles. What you have to do, now, is to click on them individually and sort them into the correct account. Unfortunately (I do not understand why they did this), you cannot move multiple transactions at once. See also this thread. Fortunately, you only have to do this once. This is what your account should look like after it is complete. After this is done, you should not have to move any more accounts, since you can directly enter the transactions in the Transfer box. At this point, your Accounts tab should look like this: Question solved!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c12efadd7fee350ffa0bd773c7bcd8f", "text": "Unfortunately, there is no facility to do bulk transaction edits in GnuCash, so you are out of luck for your existing hundred. (I don't know whether there is a way to initially import a transaction as split.) However, once you have entered this split once, it can be used as a template for new transactions, using autocomplete or by entering it in the Scheduled Transaction Editor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea5c5652e7b5488b676fca707598ad9b", "text": "This started as a comment but then really go too long so I am posting an answer: @yarun, I am also using GnuCash just like you as a non-accountant. But I think it really pays off to get to know more about accounting via GnuCash; it is so useful and you learn a lot about this hundreds of years old double entry system that all accountants know. So start learning about 5 main accounts and debits and credits, imho. It is far easier than one can think. Now the answer: even without balancing amounts exactly program is very useful as you still can track your monthly outgoings very well. Just make/adjust some reports and save their configurations (so you can re-run quickly when new data comes in) after you have classified your transactions properly. If I still did not know what some transactions were (happens a lot at first import) - I just put them under Expenses:Unaccounted Expenses - thus you will be able to see how much money went who knows where. If later you learn what those transactions were - you still can move them to the right account and you will be pleased that your reports show less unaccounted money. How many transactions to import at first - for me half a year or a year is quite enough; once you start tracking regularly you accumulate more date and this becomes a non-issue. Reflecting that personal finance is more about behaviour than maths and that it is more for the future where your overview of money is useful. Gnucash wil learn from import to import what transactions go where - so you could import say 1 or 3 month intervals to start with instead of a while year. No matter what - I still glance at every transaction on import and still sometimes petrol expense lands in grocery (because of the same seller). But to spot things like that you use reports and if one month is abnormal you can drill down to transactions and learn/correct things. Note that reports are easy to modify and you can save the report configurations with names you can remember. They are saved on the machine you do the accounting - not within the gnucash file. So if you open the file (or mysql database) on another computer you will miss your custom reports. You can transfer them, but it is a bit fiddly. Hence it makes sense to use gnucash on your laptop as that you probably will have around most often. Once you start entering transactions into GnuCash on the day or the week you incur the expense, you are getting more control and it is perhaps then you would need the balance to match the bank's balance. Then you can adjust the Equity:Opening Balances to manipulate the starting sums so that current balances match those of your bank. This is easy. When you have entered transactions proactively (on the day or the week) and then later do an import from bank statement the transactions are matched automatically and then they are said to be reconciled (i.e. your manual entry gets matched by the entry from your statement.) So for beginning it is something like that. If any questions, feel free to ask. IMHO this is a process rather a one-off thing; I began once - got bored, but started again and now I find it immensely useful.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b032d3617b0cb738bf35e3604308a83b", "text": "You would need to use Trading Accounts. You can enable this, File->Properties->Account settings tab, and check Use Trading Accounts. For more details see the following site: http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Trading_Accounts", "title": "" }, { "docid": "10d9f9670fe70075b14cc479478ba1a2", "text": "No, GnuCash doesn't specifically provide a partner cash basis report/function. However, GnuCash reports are fairly easy to write. If the data was readily available in your accounts it shouldn't be too hard to create a cash basis report. The account setup is so flexible, you might actually be able to create accounts for each partner, and, using standard dual-entry accounting, always debit and credit these accounts so the actual cash basis of each partner is shown and updated with every transaction. I used GnuCash for many years to manage my personal finances and those of my business (sole proprietorship). It really shines for data integrity (I never lost data), customer management (decent UI for managing multiple clients and business partners) and customer invoice generation (they look pretty). I found the user interface ugly and cumbersome. GnuCash doesn't integrate cleanly with banks in the US. It's possible to import data, but the process is very clunky and error-prone. Apparently you can make bank transactions right from GnuCash if you live in Europe. Another very important limitation of GnuCash to be aware of: only one user at a time. Period. If this is important to you, don't use GnuCash. To really use GnuCash effectively, you probably have to be an actual accountant. I studied dual-entry accounting a bit while using GnuCash. Dual-entry accounting in GnuCash is a pain in the butt. Accurately recording certain types of transactions (like stock buys/sells) requires fiddling with complicated split transactions. I agree with Mariette: hire a pro.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed09f5a61997ebe3e2fd0ddfe3a013fa", "text": "\"I'm not sure there's a good reason to do a \"\"closing the books\"\" ceremony for personal finance accounting. (And you're not only wanting to do that, but have a fiscal year that's different from the calendar year? Yikes!) My understanding is that usually this process is done for businesses to be able to account for what their \"\"Retained Earnings\"\" and such are for investors and tax purposes; generally individuals wouldn't think of their finances in those terms. It's certainly not impossible, though. Gnucash, for example, implements a \"\"Closing Books\"\" feature, which is designed to create transactions for each Income and Expenses account into an end-of-year Equity Retained Earnings account. It doesn't do any sort of closing out of Assets or Liabilities, however. (And I'm not sure how that would make any sense, as you'd transfer it from your Asset to the End-of-year closing account, and then transfer it back as an Opening Balance for the next year?) If you want to keep each year completely separate, the page about Closing Books in the Gnucash Wiki mentions that one can create a separate Gnucash file per year by exporting the account tree from your existing file, then importing that tree and the balances into a new file. I expect that it makes it much more challenging to run reports across multiple years of data, though. While your question doesn't seem to be specific to Gnucash (I just mention it because it's the accounting tool I'm most familiar with), I'd expect that any accounting program would have similar functionality. I would, however, like to point out this section from the Gnucash manual: Note that closing the books in GnuCash is unnecessary. You do not need to zero out your income and expense accounts at the end of each financial period. GnuCash’s built-in reports automatically handle concepts like retained earnings between two different financial periods. In fact, closing the books reduces the usefulness of the standard reports because the reports don’t currently understand closing transactions. So from their point of view it simply looks like the net income or expense in each account for a given period was simply zero. And that's largely why I'm just not sure what your goals are. If you want to look at your transactions for a certain time, to \"\"just focus on the range of years I'm interested in for any given purpose\"\" as you say, then just go ahead and run the report you care about with those years as the dates. The idea of \"\"closing books\"\" comes from a time when you'd want to take your pile of paper ledgers and go put them in storage once you didn't need to refer to them regularly. Computers now have no challenges storing \"\"every account from the beginning of time\"\" at all, and you can filter out that data to focus on whatever you're looking for easily. If you don't want to look at the old data, just don't include them in your reports. I'm pretty sure that's the \"\"better way to keep the books manageable\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f08ad36b6bbbb7fc99e5aa9a06f0376", "text": "\"I'm no accountant, but I think the way I'd want to approach this kind of thing in Gnucash would be to track it as an Asset, since it is. It sounds like your actual concern is that your tracked asset value isn't reflecting its current \"\"market\"\" value. Presumably because it's risky it's also illiquid, so you're not sure how much value it should have on your books. Your approach suggested here of having it as just as expense gives it a 0 value as an asset, but without tracking that there's something that you own. The two main approaches to tracking an investment in Gnucash are: Of course, both of these approaches do assume that you have some notion of your investment's \"\"current value\"\", which is what you're tracking. As the section on Estimating Valuation of the concepts guide says of valuing illiquid assets, \"\"There is no hard rule on this, and in fact different accountants may prefer to do this differently.\"\" If you really think that the investment isn't worth anything at the moment, then I suppose you should track it at 0, but presumably you think it's worth something or you wouldn't have bought it, right? Even if it's just for your personal records, part of a regular (maybe annual?) review of your investments should include coming up with what you currently value that investment at (perhaps your best guess of what you could sell it for, assuming that you could find a willing buyer), and updating your records accordingly. Of course, if you need a valuation for a bank or for tax purposes or the like, they have more specific rules about how they are tracking what things are worth, but presumably you're trying to track your personal assets for your own reasons to get a handle on what you currently own. So, do that! Take the time to get a handle on the worth of what you currently own. And don't worry about getting the value wrong, just take your best guess, since you can always update it later when you learn new information about what your investment is worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77f2fb35a2beff9e1f1c485393fb6fd7", "text": "\"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc61bab52d0f73aaebd7179bee102155", "text": "You will probably never see it. The startup at some point may start issuing dividends to the shareholders (which would be the owners, including you if you are in fact getting equity), but that day may never come. If they hire others with this method, you'll likely lose even that 5% as more shares are created. Think of inflation that happens when government just prints more money. All notes effectively lose value. I wouldn't invest either, most startups fail. Don't work for free on the vague promise of some future compensation; you want a salary and benefits. Equity doesn't put food on your table.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19e274619afa82cd02d9aab9f56d1ebc", "text": "\"You are confining the way you and the other co-founders are paid for guaranteeing the loan to capital shares. Trying to determine payments by equity distribution is hard. It is a practice that many small companies particularly the ones in their initial stage fall into. I always advise against trying to make payments with equity, weather it is for unpaid salary or for guaranteeing a loan such as your case. Instead of thinking about a super sophisticated algorithm to distribute the new shares between the cofounders and the new investors, given a set of constraints, which will most probably fail to make the satisfactory split, you should simply view the co-founders as debt lenders for the company and the shareholders as a capital contributor. If the co-founders are treated as debt lenders, it will be much easier to determine the risk compensation for guaranteeing the loan because it is now assessed in monetary units and this compensation is equal to the risk premium you see fit \"\"taking into consideration the probability of default \"\". On the other hand, capital contributors will gain capital shares as a percentage of the total value of the company after adding SBA loan.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2001e382087977d58faadeb8485548a", "text": "I'm not familiar with Gnucash, but I can discuss double-entry bookkeeping in general. I think the typical solution to something like this is to create an Asset account for what this other person owes you. This represents the money that he owes you. It's an Accounts Receivable. Method 1: Do you have/need separate accounts for each company that you are paying for this person? Do you need to record where the money is going? If not, then all you need is: When you pay a bill, you credit (subtract from) Checking and debit (add to) Friend Account. When he pays you, you credit (subtract from) Friend Account and debit (add to) Checking. That is, when you pay a bill for your friend you are turning one asset, cash, into a different kind of asset, receivable. When he pays you, you are doing the reverse. There's no need to create a new account each time you pay a bill. Just keep a rolling balance on this My Friend account. It's like a credit card: you don't get a new card each time you make a purchase, you just add to the balance. When you make a payment, you subtract from the balance. Method 2: If you need to record where the money is going, then you'd have to create accounts for each of the companies that you pay bills to. These would be Expense accounts. Then you'd need to create two accounts for your friend: An Asset account for the money he owes you, and an Income account for the stream of money coming in. So when you pay a bill, you'd credit Checking, debit My Friend Owes Me, credit the company expense account, and debit the Money from My Friend income account. When he repays you, you'd credit My Friend Owes Me and debit Checking. You don't change the income or expense accounts. Method 3: You could enter bills when they're received as a liability and then eliminate the liability when you pay them. This is probably more work than you want to go to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bd1a5f5aeb95f5ac87bf992d454e1c0", "text": "\"While this does fall under the \"\"All-inclusive income\"\" segment of GI (gross income), there are two questions that come up. I invested in a decentralized bitcoin business and earned about $230 this year in interest from it Your wording is confusing here only due to how bitcoin works.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dc4ccf7fd42976799c7f2a4470319ef4	What is an effective way to invest in electric car industry?	[ { "docid": "8b58cf19afffa931f223dcdf2e6a57a6", "text": "At this time I would say that the electric car industry as a whole is too new to be able to invest in it as a sector. There are only a handful of companies that focus solely on electric cars to create a moderately diverse portfolio, let alone a mutual fund. You can invest in mutual funds that include EV stocks as part of an auto sector or clean energy play, for example, but there's just not enough for an EV-only fund at this point. At this point, perhaps the best you can do if you want an exclusively EV portfolio is add some exposure to the companies that are the biggest players in the market and review the market periodically to see if any additional investments could be made to improve your diversification. Look at EV-only car makers, battery makers, infrastructure providers, etc. to get a decent balance of stocks. I would not put any more than 10% of your entire investment portfolio into any one stock, and not more than 20% or so in this sector.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4afdec959bfed8cbb0cb8190b15cd527", "text": "You could have googled this question. I did so and found a link to this article. YMMV taking investment advice from thestreet.com is very likely to lose you money. However, there do not seem to be any sector funds that specifically focus on the electric vehicle market. Along similar, but not exactly the same lines, there are sector funds that focus on renewable energy. This article reviews some of them.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "64bdb577952e5867a7f193b63a2a2477", "text": "Tesla has been pushing for mass market EV adoption since the beginning and they have clearly communicated their strategy as such. Being a niche company in an ICE dominated automotive market is not a desirable position for Tesla. They want the market to move towards EVs as having even a small chunk of a market like that is worth a ton of revenue.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c197ad441c09d2f3cfd1b2b06df90281", "text": "I think the most concise way to understand EV is the value of the operating assets of the firm. It's most generally used when using income statement or cash flow ratios that are unlevered - before applying interest expense (which if the firm is optimally financed, in theory should only impact the equity). Examples include revenue, EBIT, EBITDA, unlevered FCF, etc. In your hypothetical scenario, you would expect the equity value of the firm to increase linearly as cash builds up. In other words, in some implausible, ceteris paribus formulation of the firm, the enterprise value should remain constant.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cafd80031a7f88125c0fa2b02d28426a", "text": "I work for an investment group in Central Asia in private equity/project investment. We use SPV and collateralized convertible loans to enter a project, we issue the loan at our own commercial bank. For each industry, the exact mechanisms vary. In most outcomes, we end up in control of some very important part of the business, and even if we have minority shares on paper, no decision is made w/o our approval. For example, we enter cosntruction projects via aquisiton of land and pledging the land as equity for an SPV, then renting it to the project operator. Basically, when you enter a business, be in control of the decisions there, or have significant leverage on the operations. Have your own operating professionals to run it. Profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c2b5b3c8ed7706ba98e8168d69ec1ba2", "text": "\"This article feels like a project by an editor to see how well his new hire can write a \"\"finance\"\" article. Low hanging fruit: explain Tesla's junk rating compared to Ford's. The conclusion I was hoping he reached, which is my belief, is that Musk flys to close to the sun trying to balance expansion and debt with cash flows and revenue. If they fail Ford's the best positioned car manufacturer in my opinion. Sure, the Volvo's of the world are going all electric, but that's not what makes Tesla appealing in my opinion. They're a tech company masked as a car company. Ford is a car company trying to pivot to a tech company. Electric isn't the future, the vehical cloud is. Someone has to make these cars. Google or apple won't. Ford will hopefully build and service their own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2363641ebb9791d0787e4a12184d8564", "text": "The largest hurdle I see is producing enough electric, affordable, fully autonomous vehicles to make it economically viable. Tesla, Ford, GM, Uber, Google, and Apple are all working hard to get there because whoever does it first/best will make boatloads of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a90095b3459dd36af8cddddb5c90d453", "text": "You're not seeing the forest for the trees. Proper capital allocation takes diligent research from a community in choosing the best prospects. That community then supports LONG-TERM investment in that company. This is how proper companies are fostered; proper research is done; technologies advance, societies develop. Long-term investment leads to proper capital allocation. Please do tell me how short-term investment has any value in proper capital allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "694fd3eeabc5b9fdff2cbeef538d4832", "text": "A few things. First, in order for Tesla to succeed there needs to be a market for electric cars, Tesla alone cannot create a market for electric cars. They could have the best battery design in the world and nobody will care if nobody wants electric vehicles. The next is Tesla got a head start, and is a darling company in the public eye. People love Elon, and Tesla is portrayed as a very cool company in the public eye. The last thing that I think is important is that I don't believe Tesla released anything about their manufacturing techniques. Knowing how a battery is made is cool, but if you can't build it efficiently and affordable t doesn't matter if you know how it's built.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f7caea31e15fcd1b2887a1e849a756ee", "text": "This is great news. EVs are growing so fast. Their reduced fuel and maintenance costs will be a great boon to the economy. I wouldn't be surprising to see EVs take a significant share of the auto market in the coming years (they were ~1% in 2016). Innovation drives economic growth. It's also good for the environment (the electricity used is much cleaner than gasoline/diesel) and electrical grid (increased demand that's potentially responsive to system load helps finance smart grid improvements).", "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": "fcd97e4dcda258d5d864555778c1c986", "text": "\"To answer the investment aspect takes a bit of math. First, solar insolation numbers: This represents the average sun-hours per day for a given area. You can see the range from 4 to 6, or 1460 hrs to about 2190 hrs of sun per year depending on location. I believe electricity also has a range of cost, but 15 cents per KWH is a good average. So, a 1KW panel will produce as much as $328 per year of electricity in a high sun-hrs area, but only $219 in a lower sun-hrs area. If we agree to ignore the government subsidies and look for the stable price unaffected by outside influence, an installed price of even $2500 would produce a return of 13% and a reasonable full payback over an 8 year period. I call this installed price a tipping point, the price where this purchase provides a decent return. Some would accept a lower return, and therefore a higher price. As duff points out, this should be treated as the post rebate/tax credit price. Those help to push the price below this point. At the price point where the energy cost per panel is below, the government intervention may be unnecessary. The power companies may find consumer owned panels are the cheapest way to clip the peak consumption which tends to be the most expensive power demand.) One can take the insolation numbers and cost of local power to produce a grid showing the return for a 1KW panel in $$/year. (At this point the cost of money kick in. The present value of $100/yr is far higher today than if short term rates were say, 8%) Once panels drop to where they are compelling for the higher return areas, I'd expect volume to drive continued improvements in cost and better economies of scale. Initially, the need for storage isn't there, as the infrastructure is in place to drive your meter backwards if you produce more than you use. The peek sun coincides with peek demand and the electric companies are happy to have your demand go negative during those times. Update - the conversation with Duff led me to research 'demand charge' a bit more. You see, the utility company has to have equipment to generate the peak demand, usually occurring in the early afternoon, say 12N-2PM as the sun is brightest and AC use in particular, highest. I found that Austin energy has a PDF describing the fee for this. Simply put, the last kW of demand will cost you $14.03 in summer months and $12.65 in winter. This adds to $160/yr that a 1kW panel might save the owner. Even if one does capture the full power at peak every month, $100 is still non-trivial. This factor alone justifies $1000 worth of panel cost, and as Duff points out, the government may find it cheaper to use this method to clip peak demand than by funding bigger power generators. To summarize, the question isn't so much \"\"are they worth it\"\" as \"\"what is a xKW panel worth?\"\" (A function of annual savings and time value of money.) The ever decreasing installed cost for a given system makes solar an inevitable part of the future power technology. I am not a green tree hugging guy, but I do like to breathe fresh air as much as anyone. I'm happy with whatever role solar plays in cutting down pollution.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "434662128755a040f58842c16696c103", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/electricity-overtook-fossil-fuels-in-push-for-investment-in-2016) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) *** > Electricity drew in more investment than fossil fuel supply for the first time last year as the energy industry prepared for electrification of everything from cars to buildings and industrial processes. > &quot;With robust investment in renewable energy, increased investment into electricity networks, electricity is now the biggest area of capital investment.\"\" > The shift of capital flows away from fossil fuels and towards electricity, particularly clean sources such as solar and wind, shows that the trend spurred by the Paris climate accord is seeping into the business of energy. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6mlp52/electricity_overtook_fossil_fuels_in_push_for/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~164435 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: energy^#1 percent^#2 investment^#3 Electricity^#4 billion^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a5855b5ced372bdbf8af7f1267c5ced", "text": "I think your best strategy is to learn more about the behavior of what you're investing in. Learn everything you can about it. Specialize in it. The more you study, the more the proper strategy will present itself. Answer the questions you ask in paragraph 3 through your own study.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6490fea4bce0ddcbccf50c57bd4ecc31", "text": "Industrial grade batteries, which is what you would need for this, are not cheap. Your typical household batteries are super cheap, but not electric car batteries. Also I was speaking more from the substation point of view for the purchasing of the batteries, not the consumers. I could see having to maybe pay a membership fee to that type of station to get access though. Somehow have a way to sign some kind of forms for insurance of return of the batteries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e83ac269a792b9a9ff57306e273f13c4", "text": "i dont suppose elon's intention is to make money. which ironically is one of the reasons he will succeed. turning a quick buck business model wont work for an industry disrupter like telsa. right now they are getting the early adopters to fund the tech for more readily affordable cars. the money made is reinvested in r&d. they need a few breakthroughs before things take off, its a long term strategy. investing in tesla isnt for everybody, but the few people with enough forsight to put some money into this concept could be looking at very large gains. its kinda like investing in apple when steve jobs was just a crazy smelly hippy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "80a8c104aff7a5089e12d89c9663ef05", "text": "If you took a fixed loan, but paid it off at the accelerated rate, you would ultimately pay less total dollars in interest. So compare the actual amount paid in interest over the course of the loan rather than the interest rate itself. That should be your answer. Also, plan on failing in your plan to pay it off and see how that will affect you.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
965fb6bddf7b7cd1a69336b2780231f5	Should I include retirement funds in calculating my asset allocation?	[ { "docid": "880c472155f647b17b728aa8863c09a8", "text": "Personally, I do asset allocation separately for personal investing and for retirement investing, as I the two have vastly different purposes and I have vastly different goals for each. YMMV depending on how you view your non-retirement investments, and how close you are to retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a9bfc6f02844bb51fdc72df8873d4e3", "text": "\"You probably want to think about pools of money separately if they have separate time horizons or are otherwise not interchangeable. A classic example is your emergency fund (which has a potentially-immediate time horizon) vs. your retirement savings. The emergency fund would be all in cash or very short-term bonds, and would not count in your retirement asset allocation. Since the emergency fund usually has a capped value (a certain amount of money you want to have for emergencies) rather than a percentage of net worth value, this especially makes sense; you have to treat the emergency fund separately or you'd have to keep changing your asset allocation percentages as your net worth rises (hopefully) with respect to the capped emergency amount. Similarly, say you are saving for a car in 3 years; you'd probably invest that money very conservatively. Also, it could not go in tax-deferred retirement accounts, and when you buy the car the account will go to zero. So probably worth treating this separately. On the other hand, say you have some savings in tax-deferred retirement accounts and some in taxable accounts, but in both cases you're expecting to use the money for retirement. In that case, you have the same time horizon and goals, and it can pay to think about the taxable and nontaxable accounts as a whole. In particular you can use \"\"asset location\"\" (put less-tax-efficient assets in tax-deferred accounts). In this case maybe you would end up with mostly bonds in the tax-deferred accounts and mostly equities in the taxable accounts, for tax reasons; the asset allocation would only make sense considering all the accounts, since the taxable account would be too equity-heavy and the tax-deferred one too bond-heavy. There can be practical reasons to treat each account separately, too, though. For example if your broker has a convenient automatic rebalancing tool on their website, it probably only works within an account. Treating each account by itself would let you use the automatic rebalancing feature on the website, while a more complicated asset location strategy where you rebalance across multiple accounts might be too hard and in practice you wouldn't get around to it. Getting around to rebalancing could be more important than tax-motivated asset location. You could also take a keep-it-simple attitude: as long as your asset allocation is pretty balanced (say 40% bonds) and includes a cash allocation that would cover emergencies, you could just put all your money in one big portfolio, and think of it as a whole. If you have an emergency, withdraw from the cash allocation and then rebuild it over time; if you have a major purchase, you could redeem some bonds and then rebuild the bond portion over time. (When I say \"\"over time\"\" I'm thinking you might start putting new contributions into the now-underallocated assets, or you might dollar-cost-average back into them by selling bits of the now-overallocated assets.) Anyway there's no absolute rule, it depends on what's simple enough to be manageable for you in practice, and what separate shorter-horizon investing goals you have in addition to retirement. You can always make things complex but remember that a simple plan that happens in real life is better than a complex plan you don't keep up with in practice (or a complex plan that takes away from activities you'd enjoy more).\"", "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": "6167f63bc9252ad2217dda31cefa0496", "text": "\"I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the \"\"goal\"\" allocations may very well be different.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "79ecb26ea9c0236996186ea69aed8152", "text": "\"As you alluded to in your question, there is not one answer that will be true for all mutual funds. In fact, I would argue the question is not specific to mutual funds but can be applied to almost anyone who must make an investment decision: a mutual fund manager, hedge fund manager, or an individual investor. Even though money going into a company 401(k) retirement savings plan is typically automatically allocated to different funds as we have specified, this is generally not the case for other investment accounts. For example, I also have a Roth IRA in which I have some money from each paycheck direct deposited and it's up to me to decide whether to leave that money in cash or to invest it somewhere else. Every time you invest more money into a mutual fund, the fund manager has the same decision to make. There are two commonly used mutual fund figures that relate to your question: turnover rate, and cash reserves. Turnover rate measures the percent of a fund's portfolio that changes every year. For example, a turnover rate of 100% indicates that a fund replaces every asset it held at the beginning of the year with something else at the end of the year – funds with turnover rates greater than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of less than one year, and funds with turnover rates less than 100% average a holding period for a given asset of more than one year. Cash reserves simply measure the amount of money funds choose to keep as cash instead of investing in other assets. Another important distinction to make is between actively managed funds and passively managed funds. Passively managed funds are often referred to as \"\"index funds\"\" and have as their goal only to match the returns of a given index or some other benchmark. Actively managed funds on the other hand try to beat the market by exploiting so-called market inefficiencies; e.g. buying undervalued assets, selling overvalued assets, \"\"timing\"\" the market, etc. To answer your question for a specific fund, I would encourage you to look at the fund's prospectus. I take as one example of a passively managed fund the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (VFINX), a mutual fund that was created to track the S&P 500. In its prospectus, the fund states that, \"\"to track its target index as closely as possible, the Fund attempts to remain fully invested in stocks\"\". Furthermore, the prospectus states that \"\"the fund's daily cash balance may be invested in one or more Vanguard CMT Funds, which are very low-cost money market funds.\"\" Therefore, we would expect both this fund's turnover rate and cash reserves to be extremely low. When we look at its portfolio composition, we see this is true – it is currently at a 4.8% turnover rate and holds 0.0% in short term reserves. Therefore, we can assume this fund is regularly purchasing shares (similar to a dollar cost averaging strategy) instead of holding on to cash and purchasing shares together at a specific time. For actively managed funds, the picture will tend to look a little different. For example, if we look at the Magellan Fund's portfolio composition, we can see it has a turnover rate of 42%, and holds around .95% in cash/short term reserves. In this case, we can safely guess that trading activity may not be as regular as a passively managed fund, as an active manager attempts to time the market. You may find mutual funds that have much higher cash reserves – perhaps 10% or even more. Granted, it is impossible to know the exact trading strategy of a mutual fund, and for good reason – if we knew for example, that a fund purchases shares every day at 2:30PM in order to realign with the S&P 500, then sellers of S&P components could up the prices at that time to exploit the mutual fund's trade strategy. Large traders are constantly trying to find ways to conceal their actual trading activity in order to avoid these exact problems. Finally, I feel obligated to note that it is important to keep in mind that trade frequency is linked to transactions costs – in general, the more frequently an investment manager (whether it be you or a mutual fund manager) executes trades, the more that manager will lose in transactions costs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df2dc17c4dd2894c6421712709118270", "text": "My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4235c550d5320e788346bb69d057967b", "text": "\"In general, I'd try to keep things as simple as possible. If your plan is to have a three-fund portfolio (like Total Market, Total International, and Bond), and keep those three funds in general, then having it separated now and adding them all as you invest more is fine. (And upgrade to Admiral Shares once you hit the threshold for it.) Likewise, just putting it all into Total Market as suggested in another answer, or into something like a Target Retirement fund, is just fine too for that amount. While I'm all in favor of as low expense ratios as possible, and it's the kind of question I might have worried about myself not that long ago, look at the actual dollar amount here. You're comparing 0.04% to 0.14% on $10,000. That 0.1% difference is $10 per year. Any amount of market fluctuation, or buying on an \"\"up\"\" day or selling on a \"\"down\"\" day, is going to pretty much dwarf that amount. By the time that difference in expense ratios actually amounts to something that's worth worrying about, you should have enough to get Admiral Shares in all or at least most of your funds. In the long run, the amount you manage to invest and your asset allocation is worth much much more than a 0.1% expense ratio difference. (Now, if you're going to talk about some crazy investment with a 2% expense ratio or something, that's another story, but it's hard to go wrong at Vanguard in that respect.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c09bb96cfca0c2fa3f4596d65eb996b2", "text": "\"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \"\"number\"\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "920158cf4944d35c66998d8ea0b5227d", "text": "Toward the philosophical side of your question, it seems to me that what is most important is knowing how well your fund is performing versus it's benchmark. This is an actionable piece of information that can help you get out of an under-performing fund, although if you're already using Vanguard it's likely a low cost and broadly diversified fund. Ultimately, what you want to avoid over the long term is under-performing the market due to high fees, market timing, poor fund selection etc., and selecting a fund that closely tracks the market seems to be the best way to achieve this, assuming that you intend to be a passive investor. I don't see a clear benefit to calculating a personal rate of return. If the fund is performing well versus its benchmark, you are likely to stay with it, and if it is performing poorly, you are likely to pull out. At the end of the day, the complicated accounting won't actually change the amount you've got in your account, so I'd recommend picking a good fund, checking up on it once in a great while, and putting your time to better purpose.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc8b26879a2340e97a9b043f7e3f155", "text": "My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9eee8e19e9f44b9229656342cdb3bcb6", "text": "\"Excellent question, though any why question can be challenging to answer because it depends on the financial products in question. At least, I haven't seen many target date retirement funds that include a high percent of foreign stocks, so below explains the ones I've seen which are primarily US stocks. The United States (before the last twenty years) has been seen as a country of stability. This is not true anymore, and it's difficult for my generation to understand because we grew up in the U.S.A being challenged (and tend to think that China and India have always been powers), but when we read investors, like Benjamin Graham (who had significant influence with Warren Buffett), we can see this bias - the U.S.A to them is stable, and other countries are \"\"risky.\"\" Again, with the national debt and the political game in our current time, it does not feel this way. But that bias is often reflect in financial instruments. The US Dollar is still the reserve currency, though it's influence is declining and I would expect it to decline. Contrary to my view (because I could be wrong here) is Mish, who argues that no one wants to have the reserve currency because having a reserve currency brings disadvantages (see here: Bogus Threats to US Reserve Currency Status: No Country Really Wants It!; I present this to show that my view could be wrong). Finally, there tends to be the \"\"go with what you know.\"\" Many of these funds are managed by U.S. citizens, so they tend to have a U.S. bias and feel more comfortable investing their money \"\"at home\"\" (in fact a famous mutual fund manager, Peter Lynch, had a similar mentality - buy the company behind the stock and what company do we tend to know best? The ones around us.). One final note, I'm not saying this mentality is correct, just what the attitude is like. I think you may find that younger mutual fund managers tend to include more foreign stocks, as they've seen that different world.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9156e491f4e2121b8b45b776294c2bea", "text": "@bstpierre gave you an example of a portfolio similar to IFA's 70 portfolio. Please, look other variants of example portfolios there and investigate which would suit to you. Although the example portfolios are not ETF-based, required by the op, you can rather easily check corresponding components with this tool here. Before deciding your portfolio, fire up a spreadsheet (samples here) and do calculations and do not underestimate things below: Bogleheads have already answered this type of questions so why not look there? Less reinventing the wheel: google retirement portfolios site:bogleheads.org. I am not making any recommendations like other replies because financial recommendations devalue. I hope I steered you to the right track, use less time to pick individual funds or stocks and use more time to do your research.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "46954434d854deff0918901928a5d57c", "text": "How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc08551789f62459d11d05327992ab6a", "text": "\"At first blush, this seems like it makes sense - assuming, like you say in your question, that you are perfectly confident in your ability to repay (even if you need to pay the balance in full if you lose your job), then this seems like a guaranteed 4% return, and a reasonable part of your retirement portfolio. Where it falls apart, though, is that you're paying yourself. You're just taking the money out of one pocket and putting it in another. So really you're getting a guaranteed 0% return. You're losing the compounding growth of the loan amount while it's out of your accounts, and the fact that you can afford the 4% interest means you could have been putting that into a requirement account as well aside from the loan - so it doesn't really count as \"\"interest\"\" in the sense that your money is passively making money for you. So ultimately: no, it shouldn't count as part of your bond allocation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "338626ea8f640e3e473a95c5587d7eb9", "text": "Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25e9235db8a378409eeffee310d4fb6c", "text": "\"If I were in your shoes I'd probably take the Vanguard Total Market fund with Admiral shares, then worry about further diversification when there is more in the account. Many times when you \"\"diversify\"\" in to multiple funds you end up with a lot of specific security overlap. A lot of the big S&P 500 constituents will be in all of them, etc. So while the 10 or so basis points difference in expense ratio doesn't seem like enough of a reason NOT to spread in to multiple funds, once you split up the money between Large, Mid, Small cap funds and Growth, Value, Dividend funds you'll probably have a collection of holdings that looks substantially similar to a total market fund anyway. Unless you're looking for international or some specific industry segment exposure and all of the money is going to equities anyway, an inexpensive total market fund makes a lot of sense.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca41d7db1b793e37d2a3a3973139132e", "text": "\"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2af54e9f869b44c4f65083b7c30d1f2d", "text": "Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ada9d0a627c6197e572ac50d0b4cf55d", "text": "Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
706acafd666308013af98f3eacdcdd5b	When should I start saving/investing for my retirement?	[ { "docid": "159163ada398165908c5f22bd363d270", "text": "Start as early as possible and you will want to kiss your younger self when you get to retirement age. I know you (and everyone else at that age) thinks that they don't make enough to start saving and leans towards waiting until you get established in your career and start making better money. Don't put it off. Save some money out of each paycheck even if it is only $50. Trust me, as little as you make now, you probably have more disposable income than you will when you make twice as much. Your lifestyle always seems to keep up with your income and you will likely ALWAYS feel like you don't have money left over to save. The longer you wait, the more you are going to have to stuff away to make up for that lost time you could have been compounding your returns as shown in this table (assuming 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market from 1926-2010). I also suggest reading this article when explains it in more detail: Who Wants to be a millionaire?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4472aa8b92ebaaf96e629fde8fb099ae", "text": "Start now. It's a lot easier to save now than it is to start to save later.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4565bdd52fc78c636b1dfe90b193e54a", "text": "Start as soon as you can and make your saving routine. Start with whatever you feel comfortable with and be consistent. Increase that amount with raises, income gains, and whenever you want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11c9c90c90bba96f6ec210626a47404", "text": "Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "31ec94bab593294b8dbd7f289b1ed7d4", "text": "Here's a good strategy: Open up a Roth IRA at a discount-broker, like TD Ameritrade, invest in no-fee ETF's, tracking an Index, with very low expense ratios (look for around .15%) This way, you won't pay brokers fees whenever you buy shares, and shares are cheap enough to buy casually. This is a good way to start. When you learn more about the market, you can check out individual stocks, exploring different market sectors, etc. But you won't regret starting with a good index fund. Also, it's easy to know how well you did. Just listen on the radio or online for how the Dow or S&P did that day/month/year. Your account will mirror these changes!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41bf5cbee4234ed07d164d694903290a", "text": "\"My basic rule I tell everyone who will listen is to always live like you're a college student - if you could make it on $20k a year, when you get your first \"\"real\"\" job at $40k (eg), put all the rest into savings to start (401(k), IRA, etc). Gradually increase your lifestyle expenses after you hit major savings goals (3+ month emergency fund, house down payment, etc). Any time you get a raise, start by socking it all into your employer's 401(k) or similar. And repeat the above advice.\"", "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": "bdeeb17470fe69bea6085cc226ac6929", "text": "I like many of the answers, but here is a summary of reasons: Almost everyone will retire, and it is almost certain that government or company pensions schemes will not alone give you a lifestyle you would like in retirement. Money invested early is worth much more in retirement than money invested late, thanks to the miracle of compound interest. In some countries there are tax advantages to investing a little bit of money every year, compared with nothing for a few years and then a lump sum later. Much investment advice is given by investment consultants, who profit when you make investments. It's always in their interests to have you invest as early and as often as possible (that doesn't invalidate the first three reasons). Having said that, it isn't always in your best interests to invest in retirement funds very heavily at the start of your career. You might want to consider paying off any debts, or saving for a house, or even having a bit of fun while you are young enough to enjoy it. That back-packing trip to Nepal is going to be a lot easier when you are 23 than when you are 40 with kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2ccdf1e5dd46c8433b4bc98d3814f4ea", "text": "We don't have a good answer for how to start investing in poland. We do have good answers for the more general case, which should also work in Poland. E.g. Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? This answer provides a checklist of things to do. Let's see how you're doing: Match on work pension plan. You don't mention this. May not apply in Poland, but ask around in case it does. Given your income, you should be doing this if it's available. Emergency savings. You have plenty. Either six months of spending or six months of income. Make sure that you maintain this. Don't let us talk you into putting all your money in better long term investments. High interest debt. You don't have any. Keep up the good work. Avoid PMI on mortgage. As I understand it, you don't have a mortgage. If you did, you should probably pay it off. Not sure if PMI is an issue in Poland. Roth IRA. Not sure if this is an issue in Poland. A personal retirement account in the US. Additional 401k. A reminder to max out whatever your work pension plan allows. The name here is specific to the United States. You should be doing this in whatever form is available. After that, I disagree with the options. I also disagree with the order a bit, but the basic idea is sound: one time opportunities; emergency savings; eliminate debt; maximize retirement savings. Check with a tax accountant so as not to make easily avoidable tax mistakes. You can use some of the additional money for things like real estate or a business. Try to keep under 20% for each. But if you don't want to worry about that kind of stuff, it's not that important. There's a certain amount of effort to maintain either of those options. If you don't want to put in the effort to do that, it makes sense not to do this. If you have additional money split the bulk of it between stock and bond index funds. You want to maintain a mix between about 70/30 and 75/25 stocks to bonds. The index funds should be based on broad indexes. They probably should be European wide for the most part, although for stocks you might put 10% or so in a Polish fund and another 15% in a true international fund. Think over your retirement plans. Where do you want to live? In your current apartment? In a different apartment in the same city? In one of the places where you inherited property? Somewhere else entirely? Also, do you like to vacation in that same place? Consider buying a place in the appropriate location now (or keeping the one you have if it's one of the inherited properties). You can always rent it out until then. Many realtors are willing to handle the details for you. If the place that you want to retire also works for vacations, consider short term rentals of a place that you buy. Then you can reserve your vacation times while having rentals pay for maintenance the rest of the year. As to the stuff that you have now: Look that over and see if you want any of it. You also might check if there are any other family members that might be interested. E.g. cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. If not, you can probably sell it to a professional company that handles estate sales. Make sure that they clear out any junk along with the valuable stuff. Consider keeping furniture for now. Sometimes it can help sell a property. You might check if you want to drive either of them. If not, the same applies, check family first. Otherwise, someone will buy them, perhaps on consignment (they sell for a commission rather than buying and reselling). There's no hurry to sell these. Think over whether you might want them. Consider if they hold any sentimental value to you or someone else. If not, sell them. If there's any difficulty finding a buyer, consider renting them out. You can also rent them out if you want time to make a decision. Don't leave them empty too long. There's maintenance that may need done, e.g. heat to keep water from freezing in the pipes. That's easy, just invest that. I wouldn't get in too much of a hurry to donate to charity. You can always do that later. And try to donate anonymously if you can. Donating often leads to spam, where they try to get you to donate more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c31fd2ca20d45cccad3bed1bf0859cf", "text": "\"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb3ecfb14beec853e9a1bf84bf19d800", "text": "If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d0603711e7c4e1070df7eb7293ba24", "text": "\"First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life. The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it. It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career. It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound. (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of \"\"investing\"\" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first. Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government. All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match. This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period. No investment you make on your own will ever match that. Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k. (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own. You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k. The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much \"\"walled off\"\" from your day-to-day financial life. Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties. You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note: Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into. Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested. You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments. How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself. Here is a good starting point. If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b586c9fde989b7a17dd298472bc9b8a", "text": "If your employer matches a percentage of your contributions, then you should try to max out your plan. Once you have completed maxing out your 401k, you may want to open up an IRA for several reasons: will your 401k be enough to sustain your lifestyle in retirement? Your IRA allows you to save even more for retirement. you can invest in all sorts of stuff through your IRA that might not be available in your plan. you can withdraw the principal from your IRA, usually after five years. This serves as another form of savings. IRAs have some asset protection in the event of bankruptcy. A normal savings or investment account usually does not offer such protection.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c482006f8489cde9c9aefd43a46e4d17", "text": "I have about $1K in savings, and have been told that you should get into investment and saving for retirement early. I make around $200 per week, which about $150 goes into savings. That's $10k per year. The general rule of thumb is that you should have six months income as an emergency fund. So your savings should be around $5k. Build that first. Some argue that the standard should be six months of living expenses rather than income. Personally, I think that this example is exactly why it is income rather than living expenses. Six months of living expenses in this case would only be $1250, which won't pay for much. And note that living expenses can only be calculated after the fact. If your estimate of $50 a week is overly optimistic, you might not notice for months (until some large living expense pops up). Another problem with using living expenses as the measure is that if you hold down your living expenses to maximize your savings, this helps both measures. Then you hit your savings target, and your living expenses increase. So you need more savings. By contrast, if your income increases but your living expenses do not, you still need more savings but you can also save more money. Doesn't really change the basic analysis though. Either way you have an emergency savings target that you should hit before starting your retirement savings. If you save $150 per week, then you should have around $4k in savings at the beginning of next year. That's still low for an emergency fund by the income standard. So you probably shouldn't invest next year. With a living expenses standard, you could have $6250 in savings by April 15th (deadline for an IRA contribution that appears in the previous tax year). That's $5000 more than the $1250 emergency fund, so you could afford an IRA (probably a Roth) that year. If you save $7500 next year and start with $4k in savings (under the income standard for emergency savings), that would leave you with $11,500. Take $5500 of that and invest in an IRA, probably a Roth. After that, you could make a $100 deposit per week for the next year. Or just wait until the end. If you invested in an IRA the previous year because you decided use the living expenses standard, you would only have $6500 at the end of the year. If you wait until you have $6750, you could max out your IRA contribution. At that point, your excess income for each year would be larger than the maximum IRA contribution, so you could max it out until your circumstances change. If you don't actually save $3k this year and $7500 next year, don't sweat it. A college education is enough of an investment at your age. Do that first, then emergency savings, then retirement. That will flip around once you get a better paying, long term job. Then you should include retirement savings as an expected cost. So you'd pay the minimum required for your education loans and other required living expenses, then dedicate an amount for retirement savings, then build your emergency savings, then pay off your education loans (above the minimum payment). This is where it can pay to use the more aggressive living expenses standard, as that allows you to pay off your education loans faster. I would invest retirement savings in a nice, diversified index fund (or two since maintaining the correct stock/bond mix of 70%-75% stocks is less risky than investing in just bonds much less just stocks). Investing in individual stocks is something you should do with excess money that you can afford to lose. Secure your retirement first. Then stock investments are gravy if they pan out. If they don't, you're still all right. But if they do, you can make bigger decisions, e.g. buying a house. Realize that buying individual stocks is about more than just buying an app. You have to both check the fundamentals (which the app can help you do) and find other reasons to buy a stock. If you rely on an app, then you're essentially joining everyone else using that app. You'll make the same profit as everyone else, which won't be much because you all share the profit opportunities with the app's system. If you want to use someone else's system, stick with mutual funds. The app system is actually more dangerous in the long term. Early in the app's life cycle, its system can produce positive returns because a small number of people are sharing the benefits of that system. As more people adopt it though, the total possible returns stay the same. At some point, users saturate the app. All the possible returns are realized. Then users are competing with each other for returns. The per user returns will shrink as usage grows. If you have your own system, then you are competing with fewer people for the returns from it. Share the fundamental analysis, but pick your stocks based on other criteria. Fundamental analysis will tell you if a stock is overvalued. The other criteria will tell you which undervalued stock to buy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c356e8420a2c5d92c5e00162076e09d", "text": "\"It doesn't really make sense to worry about the details of \"\"what counts as saving\"\" unless you also move beyond a simplistic rule of thumb like \"\"save 10% of your income\"\". That said, most of the sources I see pushing rules of thumb like that are talking about saving for retirement. That is, you need to sock that money away so you will be able to spend it after you retire. (This CNN page is one example.) On that theory, it only \"\"counts\"\" if you put it away and don't touch it until you retire, so things like car and computer funds would not count as saving. Another thing you'll see some people say (e.g., this Nerdwallet article) is to use 20% of your income for \"\"financial priorities\"\". This would include retirement saving, but also things like paying off debt and saving for a down payment on a house. Saving for a small purchase in the near future would not usually be considered \"\"saving\"\" at all, since you're not going to keep the money. If you put $5 in your wallet tonight so you can buy a hamburger for lunch tomorrow, you wouldn't call that saving; likewise setting aside a few hundred dollars for a new computer wouldn't \"\"count\"\" as saving under most definitions. (Some people might \"\"count\"\" saving for something like a house, since that is a long-term plan and the house, unlike a computer, may rise in value after you buy it. But you wouldn't want to fully count the house as part of your retirement savings unless you're willing to sell it and live off the proceeds.) However, none of these rules will help that much if your goal is, as you say at the end of your question, to \"\"know if I need to save more than what I actually am saving currently\"\". Saving 10% of your income won't magically ensure that you're saving \"\"enough\"\". To assess whether you personally are saving \"\"enough\"\", you need to actually start running some numbers on how much money you personally will need in retirement. This will depend on any number of factors, including where you live, what sources of retirement income you might have besides savings (e.g., pensions), etc. In short, to know if you're saving enough, you can't listen to the generic stuff that \"\"everyone says\"\"; you need to consider your own situation in a deliberate, focused way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19749455ee6d5894064e82d59a375d58", "text": "It would be quite the miracle if you found that you know, now, just graduating college, what your tax rate would be at retirement. But, it's fair to say that chances are that you'll be in a higher tax bracket in years to come due to promotions,better job, or he joy of dual income after marriage. So, I'd suggest Roth for now, with an eye towards pretax savings as your income and bracket rises. Ideally, a retiree finds himself in a bracket no higher than while working, but also not lower. You see, saving in Roth 100% and missing the ability to withdraw at 0, 10, and 15%, is as bad as saving 100% in pretax, and fining you retire in a higher bracket. No one can tell you the best path, but at any given moment, the highest probability outcome may be visible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb86b8366e07682b4dbd0b23f812c833", "text": "First priority is to set up an emergency fund of 6 months expenses. If you're going to be making ~30k a year, then that means you'll probably want to put away about 10k of it in a savings account or something else similarly liquid. After that, paying off your student loans probably makes the most sense depending on the rate. My general rule of thumb (and I'm sure others will disagree with me) is to pay off debts that are >=6.0% first before investing. Paying off debt is a risk-free return on your money, which makes it pretty valuable. It'll let you direct more of your monthly income into retirement savings, too. After that, open up a Roth IRA. You can put a maximum of $5500 in it for this year. I like Betterment, but Wealthfront has a similar service.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "732b1d87850d18987f69ce516b933752", "text": "\"This Stack Exchange site is a nice place to find answers and ask questions. Good start! Moving away from the recursive answer... Simply distilling personal finance down to \"\"I have money, I'll need money in the future, what do I do\"\", an easily digestible book with how-to, multi-step guidelines is \"\"I Will Teach You To Be Rich\"\". The author talks about setting up the accounts you should have, making sure all your bills are paid automatically, saving on the big things and tips to increase your take home pay. That link goes to a compilation page on the blog with many of the most fundamental articles. However, \"\"The World’s Easiest Guide To Understanding Retirement Accounts\"\" is a particularly key article. While all the information is on the free blog, the book is well organized and concise. The Simple Dollar is a nice blog with frugal living tips, lifestyle assessments, financial thoughts and reader questions. The author also reviews about a book a week. Investing - hoping to get better returns than savings can provide while minimizing risk. This thread is an excellent list of books to learn about investing. I highly recommend \"\"The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing\"\" and \"\"The Only Investment Guide You'll Ever Need\"\". The world of investment vehicles is huge but it doesn't have to be complicated once you ignore all the fads and risky stuff. Index mutual funds are the place to start (and maybe end). Asset allocation and diversification are themes to guide you. The books on that list will teach you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f4622ab3f6c1ad091de3f50fc108f36", "text": "\"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \"\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\"\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e6a9e8163630b92f5d1d506c5e99bda", "text": "\"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a \"\"high net worth\"\" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b2bf07e63994720b13da84861816442", "text": "\"To me, your question emphasizes something I've heard many times before: personal finance is as much or more about behavior than it is about mathematics or \"\"head knowledge\"\". Sure, you know you shouldn't be wasting a lot of money on something you will use very infrequently, but how do you make this behavior stick? Here are a few tricks that might help: The other aspects of your question really touch more on psychology than finance. But getting yourself into a discipline habit with money will help. And realizing the full cash price of items in relation to how much your disposable income is will help you get control of your impulses, as you review your budget monthly, and keep limit yourself using the envelope system. But honestly, everybody wants stuff they don't have, it's human nature. The key is finding ways to put physical limits and guards on yourself to keep you from obeying the self-destructive impulses.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a83b15084f2c85b7a3c0bb4d6a6f8667	How to choose a company for an IRA?	[ { "docid": "5cd9bf9eeeb4256ee79f6605e933f98c", "text": "\"I use TIAA-Cref for my 403(b) and Fidelity for my solo 401(k) and IRAs. I have previously used Vanguard and have also used other discount brokers for my IRA. All of these companies will charge you nothing for an IRA, so there's really no point in comparing cost in that respect. They are all the \"\"cheapest\"\" in this respect. Each one will allow you to purchase their mutual funds and those of their partners for free. They will charge you some kind of fee to invest in mutual funds of their competitors (like $35 or something). So the real question is this: which of these institutions offers the best mutual and index funds. While they are not the worst out there, you will find that TIAA-Cref are dominated by both Vanguard and Fidelity. The latter two offer far more and larger funds and their funds will always have lower expense ratios than their TIAA-Cref equivalent. If I could take my money out of TIAA-Cref and put it in Fidelity, I'd do so right now. BTW, you may or may not want to buy individual stocks or ETFs in your account. Vanguard will let you trade their ETFs for free, and they have lots. For other ETFs and stocks you will pay $7 or so (depends on your account size). Fidelity will give you free trades in the many iShares ETFs and charge you $5 for other trades. TIAA-Cref will not give you any free ETFs and will charge you $8 per trade. Each of these will give you investment advice for free, but that's about what it's worth as well. The quality of the advice will depend on who picks up the phone, not which institution you use. I would not make a decision based on this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d0e682b13c983127955f910fc6b29b2", "text": "The fees for Vanguard and Fidelity IRA housing cannot be lower, because they are zero. Depending on the fund you invest in, one or the other will have pretty low fees and are often the lowest in the industry. I don't qualify for TIAA-CREF, but my mother does and she loves them. She can call up and get some advice for free. I would not qualify it as the best advice in the world, but it certainly isn't horrible. So it really depends on what you are looking for. If you want a little investment advice, I would go with TIAA-CREF. If you are a do it yourself-er go with Vanguard.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f74cfd1bbee899a603683b9b73a62322", "text": "I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f4169e685a12d264278d31530c50068e", "text": "Here is a nice overview from Vanguard on some options for a small business owner to offer retirement accounts. https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/small-business/compare-plans I would look over the chart and decide which avenue is best for you and then call around to investment companies (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. etc.) asking for pricing information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b4932c3b586345161e4b3ad94313b6f0", "text": "Instead of saying which one is better, which is too subjective, I think it is more important to understand what these institutions are. They are kind of different animals. Edward Jones pretty much a full service wealth manager. They meet with you in person, advise you on what retirement and savings accounts to get, they talk to you to evaluate your risk preferences. They will talk to you about planning for your kids' college and about your insurance situation. They will probably attend your kids' bar mitzvahs and stuff too. Of course, this isn't free. With Edward Jones you will pay a fixed percentage of your managed wealth to them every year. And they will likely put your money in expensive mutual funds. And those mutual funds will charge a special 12b-1 fee, which is a kickback to the wealth manager. Plan on giving 2% or so of your total wealth to the manager per year, plus whatever the mutual funds charge. I don't have experience with Betterment, but they appear to be a robo advisor. Robo advisors attempt to do the same kinds of things as wealth managers, but rely on computer algorithms and web pages to give you advice whenever possible. This makes some sense because most people aren't actually that special in terms of their financial situation. I don't know their cost structure, but presumably it will be significantly cheaper than Edward Jones. They will almost certainly put you in cheaper funds (index funds and ETF's). Think of it as a cost-conscious alternative to Edward Jones. Vanguard is a discount broker and a mutual fund family. Their funds are among the biggest and cheapest in the world. Fees on many of these funds will be a fraction of the equivalent funds Edward Jones will put you in. They will charge you nothing at all to manage your money. They will give you some assistance and advice if you call them but don't expect any house calls. They aren't particularly in the business of giving advice. If you know what you want to invest in, this is the cheapest way to do it by far. Basically you won't have to pay anything at all except the actual cost of the assets you are investing in. Which is the best? Depends on your own preferences and ability. If you do not want to learn about personal finance and don't particularly care about whether you are getting the best return--if you don't mind paying for a personal touch--Edward Jones might be a good choice. For most people who are comfortable asking this type of question online and interested in learning about finance even a little bit, I'd expect that Betterment or Vanguard will be a better choice. For people who are willing to learn a bit of finance and manage their own affairs, using Vanguard (or a close competitor, like Fidelity) will ultimately result in the most wealth generated (the least given away to the financial industry).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b92b4f26aafa7209e262673ddf9835ef", "text": "Your Simple IRA account is yours and yours alone, not your employer's. The only thing your employer can do with it is putting more money into it. The best option is to simple let it sit for the two years, and then either:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5768adeca0219e72d67ccb5dbb924ded", "text": "Immediately move your Roth IRA out of Edward Jones and into a discount broker like Scottrade, Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or E-Trade. Edward Jones will be charging you a large fraction of your money (probably at least 1% explicitly and maybe another 1% in hidden-ish fees like the 12b-1). Don't give away several percent of your savings every year when you can have an account for free. Places like Edward Jones are appropriate only for people who are unwilling to learn about personal finance and happy to pay dearly as a result. Move your money by contacting the new broker, then requesting that they get your money out of Edward Jones. They will be happy to do so the right way. Don't try and get the money out yourself. Continue to contribute to your Roth as long as your tax bracket is low. Saving on taxes is a critically important part of being financially wise. You can spend your contributions (not gains) out of your Roth for any reason without penalty if you want/need to. When your tax bracket is higher, look at traditional IRA's instead to minimize your current tax burden. For more accessible ways of saving, open a regular (non-tax-advantaged) brokerage account. Invest in diversified and low-cost funds. Look at the expense ratios and minimize your portfolio's total expense. Higher fee funds generally do not earn the money they take from you. Avoid all funds that have a nonzero 12b-1 fee. Generally speaking your best bet is buying index funds from Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab, or their close competitors. Or buying cheap ETF's. Any discount brokerage will allow you to do this in both your Roth and regular accounts. Remember, the reason you buy funds is to get instant diversification, not because you are willing to gamble that your mutual funds will outperform the market. Head to the bogleheads forum for more specific advice about 3 fund portfolios and similar suggested investment strategies like the lazy portfolios. The folks in the forums there like to give specific advice that's not appropriate here. If you use a non-tax-advantaged account for investing, buy and sell in a tax-smart way. At the end of the year, sell your poor performing stocks or funds and use the loss as a tax write-off. Then rebalance back to a good portfolio. Or if your tax bracket is very low, sell the winners and lock in the gains at low tax rates. Try to hold things more than a year so you are taxed at the long-term capital gains rate, rather than the short-term. Only when you have several million dollars, then look at making individual investments, rather than funds. In a non-tax-advantaged account owning the assets directly will help you write off losses against your taxes. But either way, it takes several million dollars to make the transactions costs of maintaining a portfolio lower than the fees a cheap mutual/index fund will charge.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dba80ff472f390f5f0c726aae6bb982c", "text": "Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b4d041501b889e30080b61b2a31216c", "text": "You could certainly look at the holdings of index funds and choose index funds that meet your qualifications. Funds allow you to see their holdings, and in most cases you can tell from the description whether certain companies would qualify for their fund or not based on that description - particularly if you have a small set of companies that would be problems. You could also pick a fund category that is industry-specific. I invest in part in a Healthcare-focused fund, for example. Pick a few industries that are relatively diverse from each other in terms of topics, but are still specific in terms of industry - a healthcare fund, a commodities fund, an REIT fund. Then you could be confident that they weren't investing in defense contractors or big banks or whatever you object to. However, if you don't feel like you know enough to filter on your own, and want the diversity from non-industry-specific funds, your best option is likely a 'socially screened' fund like VFTSX is likely your best option; given there are many similar funds in that area, you might simply pick the one that is most similar to you in philosophy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35eed1a04db12d6f36550c7aa0fa52a0", "text": "Overall I think your idea is sound. The key here is to choose that 401k provider wisely and have a specific asset allocation plan (like Joe mentioned) Summary of this approach: Pluses: Minuses: I'd consider Vanguard for simple, no frills investing. If you're looking to get into choosing stocks, check out the Motley Fool.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c74c14155d3ec2425e8b853ed5f54587", "text": "\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that. Well, this isn't a meaningful distinction. The mutual fund may or may not be in an IRA. Similarly, the mutual fund may or may not be in a 401(k), however. So I'm going to treat your question as if it's \"\"why would a person get a mutual fund (like Vanguard) or something like that in an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into the same mutual fund in a 401(k).\"\" Same mutual fund, same amount of money, narrowing your question to the difference between the two types of accounts, as stated in your question's title. Others have answered that to the extent that you really have no choice other than \"\"pick which type of account to use for a given bundle of money\"\", other than nobody having mentioned the employer match. Even if there were no other difference at all in tax treatment, it's pretty typical that 401(k) contributions will be matched by free money from the employer. No IRA can compete with that. But, that's not the only choice either: Many of us contribute to both the 401(k) and the IRA. Why? Because we can. I'm not suggesting that just-anybody can, but, if you max out the employer matching in the 401(k), or if you max out the tax-advantaged contribution limit in the 401(k), and you still have more money that you want to save in a tax-advantaged retirement account this year, you can do so. The IRA is available, it's not \"\"instead-of\"\" the 401(k).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "088fc89a500d498fc4ea9e5fb306a759", "text": "Whether an investment is pre-tax is determined by the type of account (i.e., tax-advantaged vs ordinary taxable account), but whether you can invest in individual stocks is determined by the provider (i.e., the particular bank where you have the account). These are orthogonal choices. If you want to invest in individual stocks, you need to look for a bank that offers an IRA/401k/other tax-advantaged account and allows you to invest in individual stocks with it. For example, this page suggests that Fidelity would let you do that. Obviously you should look into various providers yourself to find one that offers the mix of features you want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d0bcfb2c0730687b9984f9bc1633952a", "text": "There are two methods of doing this Pulling out the money and paying the penalty if any, and going on your way. Having the Roth IRA own the business, and being an employee. If you go with the second choice, you should read more about it on this question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a54240da4b431d36b9d5df63fdc615d", "text": "I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8692fd6d6860fb9a35e245f7f718060", "text": "A 401-K is something you get through an employer. I recommend getting a self-directed IRA. You can open an IRA with Scottrade with $500 The money you put into an IRA is tax deferred, meaning that you do not have to pay taxes on profits. It may also lower your tax liability. Scottrade has a feature to automatically reinvest any dividends from the securities you own. This feature allows you to avoid commissions on those automatic purchases. Don't try to time the market. Pick a good ETF (exchange traded fund) that pays dividends. It will give you diversification. Avoid the urge to buy and sell constantly. This only gives commissions to the broker.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9f92b437d308995bcd00e2e5cc8c7f1d", "text": "I like that you are hedging ONLY the Roth IRA - more than likely you will not touch that until retirement. Looking at fees, I noticed Vanguard Target retirement funds are .17% - 0.19% expense ratios, versus 0.04 - 0.14% for their Small/Mid/Large cap stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a1480ee3136d3cfa3c40fb998a544ef", "text": "First, check out some of the answers on this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing When you have determined that you are ready to invest for retirement, there are two things you need to consider: the investment and the account. These are separate items. The investment is what makes your money grow. The type of account provides tax advantages (and restrictions). Generally, these can be considered separately; for the most part, you can do any type of investment in any account. Briefly, here is an overview of some of the main options: In your situation, the Roth IRA is what I would recommend. This grows tax free, and if you need the funds for some reason, you can get out what you put in without penalty. You can invest up to $5500 in your Roth IRA each year. In addition to the above reasons, which are true for anybody, a Roth IRA would be especially beneficial for you for three reasons: For someone that is closer in age to retirement and in a higher tax bracket now, a Roth IRA is less attractive than it is for you. Inside your Roth IRA, there are lots of choices. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. There are lots of different types of stock mutual funds with different strategies and expenses associated with them. Managed funds actively buy and sell different stocks inside them, but have high expenses to pay the managers. Index funds buy and hold a list of stocks, and have very low expenses. The conventional wisdom is that, in general, index funds perform better than managed funds when you take the expenses into account. I hope this overview and these recommendations were helpful. If you have any specific questions about any of these types of accounts or investments, feel free to ask another question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3ac3834ecfdcdd0f6bcca73ae4e4620", "text": "First: great job on getting it together. This is good for your family in any respect I can think of. This is a life long process and skill, but it will pay off for you and yours if you work on it. Your problem is that you don't seem to know where you money goes. You can't decide how whacky your expenses are until you know what they are. Looking at just your committed expenses and ignore the other stuff might be the problem here. You state that you feel you live modestly, but you need to be able to measure it completely to decide. I would suggest an online tool like mint.com (if you can get it in your country) because it will go back for 90 days and get transactions for you. If you primarily work in cash, this isn't helpful, but based on your credit card debt I am hoping not. (Although, a cash lifestyle would be good if you tend to overspend.) Take the time and sort your transactions into categories. Don't setup a budget, just sort them out. I like to limit the number of categories for clarity sake, especially to start. Don't get too crazy, and don't get too detailed at first. If you buy a magazine at the grocery store, just call it groceries. Once you know what you spend, then you can setup a budget for the categories. If somethings are important, create new categories. If one category is a problem, then break it down and find the specific issue. The key is that you budget not be more than you earn but also representative of what you spend. Follow up with mint every other day or every weekend so the categorization is a quick and easy process. Put it on your iPhone and do it at every lunch break. Share the information with your spouse and talk about it often.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8f12d121e99dc2b8fa3f89237960fd99	Does Joel Greenblatt's “Magic Formula Investing” really beat the market?	[ { "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": "13d54dbd5a6b33f419ebeafe4f977782", "text": "\"I read the book, and I'm willing to believe you'd have a good chance of beating the market with this strategy - it is a reasonable, rational, and mechanical investment discipline. I doubt it's overplayed and overused to the point that it won't ever work again. But only IF you stick to it, and doing so would be very hard (behaviorally). Which is probably why it isn't overplayed and overused already. This strategy makes you place trades in companies you often won't have heard of, with volatile prices. The best way to use the strategy would be to try to get it automated somehow and avoid looking at the individual stocks, I bet, to take your behavior out of it. There may well be some risk factors in this strategy that you don't have in an S&P 500 fund, and those could explain some of the higher returns; for example, a basket of sketchier companies could be more vulnerable to economic events. The strategy won't beat the market every year, either, so that can test your behavior. Strategies tend to work and then stop working (as the book even mentions). This is related to whether other investors are piling in to the strategy and pushing up prices, in part. But also, outside events can just happen to line up poorly for a given strategy; for example a bunch of the \"\"fundamental index\"\" ETFs that looked at dividend yield launched right before all the high-dividend financials cratered. Investing in high-dividend stocks probably is and was a reasonable strategy in general, but it wasn't a great strategy for a couple years there. Anytime you don't buy the whole market, you risk both positive and negative deviations from it. Here's maybe a bigger-picture point, though. I happen to think \"\"beating the market\"\" is a big old distraction for individual investors; what you really want is predictable, adequate returns, who cares if the market returns 20% as long as your returns are adequate, and who cares if you beat the market by 5% if the market cratered 40%. So I'm not a huge fan of investment books that are structured around the topic of beating the market. Whether it's index fund advocates saying \"\"you can't beat the market so buy the index\"\" or Greenblatt saying \"\"here's how to beat the market with this strategy,\"\" it's still all about beating the market. And to me, beating the market is just irrelevant. Nobody ever bought their food in retirement because they did or did not beat the market. To me, beating the market is a game for the kind of actively-managed mutual fund that has a 90%-plus R-squared correlation with the index; often called an \"\"index hugger,\"\" these funds are just trying to eke out a little bit better result than the market, and often get a little bit worse result, and overall are a lot of effort with no purpose. Just get the index fund rather than these. If you're getting active management involved, I'd rather see a big deviation from the index, and I'd like that deviation to be related to risk control: hedging, or pulling back to cash when valuations get rich, or avoiding companies without a \"\"moat\"\" and margin of safety, or whatever kind of risk control, but something. In a fund like this, you aren't trying to beat the market, you're trying to increase the chances of adequate returns - you're optimizing for predictability. I'm not sure the magic formula is the best way to do that, focused as it is on beating the market rather than on risk control. Sorry for the extra digression but I hope I answered the question a bit, too. ;-)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9708fd9fca3a8cda7cfd27eff853e622", "text": "Probably not. Once the formula is out there, and if it actually seems to work, more and more investors chase the same stocks, drive the price up, and poof! The advantage is gone. This is the very reason why Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions when he's buying. If people know that BRK is buying, lots of others will follow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b69729bada42bb7a457c3908d99e963", "text": "In addition to other answers consider the following idea. That guy could have invented say one thousand formulas many years ago and been watching how they all perform then select the one that happened to be beat the market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a25513894aa9f95a80fa632bc829304f", "text": "GENIX was started by Joel Greenblatt back in 2013, so it is a real life test of the strategy. GENIX got off to a great start in 2013 and 2014 (probably because investors were pumping money into the fund) but had a terrible 2015, and lagging in 2016. Since inception it has under-performed an S&P 500 index fund by about 1.90% per year. The expense ratio of the fund is 2.15%, so before expenses GENIX still has a slight edge, but Greenbatt is doing much better the fund's investors. I think GENIX could be an OK investment if the expense ratio were reduced from 2.15% to around 0.50%, but I doubt the fund will ever do that.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3baa242993cb5b6cc6ab13e6fa977495", "text": "Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6bfdc5b647b5f94ef5ffe18b4b174c9a", "text": "\"Despite Buffett's nearly perfect consistent advice over the past few decades, they don't reflect his earliest days. His modern philosophy seemed to solidify in the 1970s. You can see that Buffett's earliest days grew faster, at 29.5 % for those partners willing to take on leverage with Buffett, than the last half century, at 19.7%. Not only is Buffett limited by size, as its quite difficult to squeeze one half trillion USD into sub-billion USD investments, but the economy thus market is far different than it was before the 1980s. He would have to acquire at least 500 billion USD companies outright, and there simply aren't that many available that satisfy all of his modern conditions. The market is much different now than it was when he first started at Graham-Newman because before the 1960s, the economy thus market would collapse and rebound about every few years. This sort of variance can actually help a value investor because a true value investor will abandon investments when valuations are high and go all in when valuations are low. The most extreme example was when he tried to as quietly as possible buy up an insurance company selling for something like a P/E of 1 during one of the collapses. These kinds of opportunities are seldom available anymore, not even during the 2009 collapse. As he became larger, those investments became off limits because it simply wasn't worth his time to find such a high returner if it's only a bare fraction of his wealth. Also, he started to deviate from Benjamin Graham's methods and started to incorporate Philip Fisher's. By the 1970s, his investment philosophy was more or less cemented. He tried to balance Graham's avarice for price with Fisher's for value. All of the commentary that special tax dodges or cheap financing are central to his returns are false. They contributed, but they are ancillary. As one can see by comparing the limited vs general partners, leverage helps enormously, but this is still a tangent. Buffett has undoubtedly built his wealth from the nature of his investments. The exact blueprint can be constructed by reading every word he has published and any quotes he has not disavowed. Simply, he buys the highest quality companies in terms of risk-adjusted growth at the best available prices. Quantitatively, it is a simple strategy to replicate. NFLX was selling very cheaply during the mid-2000s, WDC sells frequently at low valuations, up and coming retailers frequently sell at low valuations, etc. The key to Buffett's method is emotional control and removing the mental block that price equals value; price is cost, value is revenue, and that concept is the hardest for most to imbibe. Quoting from the first link: One sidelight here: it is extraordinary to me that the idea of buying dollar bills for 40 cents takes immediately to people or it doesn't take at all. It's like an inoculation. If it doesn't grab a person right away, I find that you can talk to him for years and show him records, and it doesn't make any difference. They just don't seem able to grasp the concept, simple as it is. A fellow like Rick Guerin, who had no formal education in business, understands immediately the value approach to investing and he's applying it five minutes later. I've never seen anyone who became a gradual convert over a ten-year period to this approach. It doesn't seem to be a matter of IQ or academic training. It's instant recognition, or it is nothing. and I'm convinced that there is much inefficiency in the market. These Graham-and-Doddsville investors have successfully exploited gaps between price and value. When the price of a stock can be influenced by a \"\"herd\"\" on Wall Street with prices set at the margin by the most emotional person, or the greediest person, or the most depressed person, it is hard to argue that the market always prices rationally. In fact, market prices are frequently nonsensical. and finally Success in investing doesn’t correlate with I.Q. once you’re above the level of 25. Once you have ordinary intelligence, what you need is the temperament to control the urges that get other people into trouble in investing. There is almost no information on any who has helped Buffett internally or even managed Berkshire's investments aside from Louis Simpson. It is unlikely that Buffett has allowed anyone to manage much of Berkshire's investments considering the consistent stream of commentary from him claiming that he nearly does nothing except read annual reports all day to the extent that he may have neglected his family to some degree and that listening to others will more likely hurt performance than help with the most striking example being his father's recommendation that he not open a hedge fund after retiring from Graham-Newman because he believed the market was topping, and he absolutely idolized his father.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9b120328813deca9d848fd3cb63a1698", "text": "\"The technical term for it is \"\"timing the market\"\" and if you can pull it off correctly, you will do quite well. The problem is that it is almost impossible to consistently do well. If it were that easy there would be a lot of billionaires walking around. Even Wall street experts haven't been able to predict the market that well. This idea is almost universally considered a bad idea. Consider this: When has the stock dropped low enough that you are \"\"buying low\"\" and let's say you do buy low and it doubles in a month. When do you get out? What if you are wrong and it doubles again? Or if it drops 10% do you keep waiting? This strategy is rife with problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a22865d3c92a8476bba9a888093840", "text": "No, the stock market and investing in general is not a zero sum game. Some types of trades are zero sum because of the nature of the trade. But someone isn't necessarily losing when you gain in the sale of a stock or other security. I'm not going to type out a technical thesis for your question. But the main failure of the idea that investing is zero sum is the fact the a company does not participate in the transacting of its stock in the secondary market nor does it set the price. This is materially different from the trading of options contracts. Options contracts are the trading of risk, one side of the contract wins and one side of the contract loses. If you want to run down the economic theory that if Jenny bought her shares from Bob someone else is missing out on Jenny's money you're free to do that. But that would mean that literally every transaction in the entire economy is part of a zero sum game (and really misses the definition of zero sum game). Poker is a zero sum game. All players bet in to the game in equal amounts, one player takes all the money. And hell, I've played poker and lost but still sometimes feel that received value in the form of entertainment.", "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": "9fa77761a09cfe9d1742dd2a47672057", "text": "\"From his other work he certainly buys the truism that the markets are efficient at a 0-th approximation. But not entirely efficient. See e.g. Schleifer \"\"The limits to arbitrage\"\". Most if not all the money made by managed funds is at the expense of customers, not from outperforming the market. Ripping customers' faces off is a lot easier than beating the market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1049121ec177abfc5cd10991f71b76c", "text": "Obviously, these numbers can never be absolute simply because not all the information is public. Any statistic will most likely be biased. I can tell you the following from my own experience that might get you closer in your answer: Hence, even though I cannot give you exact numbers, I fully agree that traders cannot beat the index long term. If you add the invested time and effort that is necessary to follow an active strategy, then the equation looks even worse. Mind you, active trading and active asset allocation (AAA) are two very different things. AAA can have a significant impact on your portfolio performance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f59052078c6adb8e8367c0a9504e77d0", "text": "I'm not going to speak for him but that feels like an ad hominem attack. Regardless of his bent, there is a growing voice of credible professionals that are eschewing MPT. Behavioral finance has for decades, anyway. BTW, Leigh is out of the asset mgmt biz and runs Estimize, which is a cool tool to identify others with the special sauce. Just saying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0eb21d9f6455f52ae8801d8e14bb77ec", "text": "Not a day goes by that someone isn't forecasting a collapse or meteoric rise. Have you read Ravi Batra's The Great Depression of 1990? The '90s went on to return an amazing 18.3%/yr compound growth rate for the decade. (The book sells for just over $3 with free Amazon shipping.) In 1987, Elaine Garzarelli predicted the crash. But went years after to produce unremarkable results. Me? I saw that 1987 was up 5% or so year on year (in hindsight , of course), and by just staying invested, I added deposits throughout the year, and saw that 5% return. What crash? Looking back now, it was a tiny blip. You need to be diversified in a way that one segment of the market falling won't ruin you. If you think the world is ending, you should make peace with your loved ones and your God, no investment advice will be of any value. (Nor will gold for that matter.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e67e45b5854d2f1613136954e4faf30", "text": "\"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy. Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen. It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify. The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund. For example, consider buying physical gold. To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it. So, it has additional costs. Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF. At least a portion of \"\"their gold\"\" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month. This creates a slight inefficiency. While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable. And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "360503adf72fdf1c17262981721bfc4b", "text": "Even experts have no real certainty what the market will do as a whole. 2/3's of managers fail to beat the market every year. I think this is mostly due to hedging and trying to meet their investors needs. If. You buy and hold a few index ETFs you will most likely beat actively managed accountsn that said, you will sacrifice liquidity if you want to avoid cyclical losses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae5328d39b4595fdc2abf63ff7bdfb46", "text": "I wouldn't read into the title too much. We live in a world of click bait. I'd agree with your statement, that really the point is that reading fiction makes you better at understanding human emotion which makes you better at investing because the market is very emotional by nature. Of course I'd say if this is your position I'd be taking some long straddle positions on options leading up to conference meetings on big companies like Apple, Google, Amazon, Tesla and calling it a day.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "547c5288c6257859afa48a19b2a24f88", "text": "\"As an aside, why does it seem to be difficult to get a conclusive answer to this question? I'm going to start by trying to answer this question and I think the answer here will help answer the other questions. Here is a incomplete list of the challenges involved: So my question is, is there any evidence that value investing actually beats the market? Yes there is a lot of evidence that it works and there is a lot of evidence that it does not. timday's has a great link on this. Some rules/methods work over some periods some work during others. The most famous evidence for value investing probably comes from Fama and French who were very careful and clever in solving many of the above problems and had a large persistent data set, but their idea is very different from Damodaran's, for instance, and hard to implement though getting easier. Is the whole field a waste of time? Because of the above problems this is a hard question. Some people like Warren Buffet have clearly made a lot of money doing this. Though it is worth remembering a good amount of the money these famous investors make is off of fees for investing other peoples' money. If you understand fundamental analysis well you can get a job making a lot of money doing it for a company investing other peoples' money. The markets are very random that it is very hard for people to tell if you are good at it and since markets generally go up it is easy to claim you are making money for people, but clearly banks and hedge funds see significant value in good analysts so it is likely not entirely random. Especially if you are a good writer you can make a more money here than most other jobs. Is it worth it for the average investor saving for retirement? Very, very hard to say. Your time might be better spent on your day job if you have one. Remember because of the fees and added risk involved over say index investing more \"\"Trading is Hazardous to Your Wealth.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae9024d77a8d2f0a0d7018ae4fe9106a", "text": "Hey Buddy, I like how you echo the same BS the top 1% spews. Time to educate you with some simple math (using arbitrary numbers to explain my point). top 1% has $1,000,000 Bottom 80% has $1000 I say bottom 80%, because it is effectively top 1%, next 19%-20%, and remaining 80% Top 1% tax @24.7% --> $1,000,000 / 24.75 = $753,000 Bottom 80% tax @30% --> $1000 / 30 = $700 $753,000 > $700 Do you see the problem? Sure, the rich pay $247,000 in taxes compared to $300 for the bottom 80%. However, the wealth is still greatly disproportionate even after taxes. Hence, why the wealth gap is increasing year over year. *Edit The tax rates @24.7% and @30% are the numbers for 2015, assuming not much has changed since. I am using $1,000,000 and $1,000 as arbitrary representations of wealth; for better understanding the issue.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
11a3101f24fa101d845e142cb7b94ad0	What is the P/E ratio for a company with negative earnings?	[ { "docid": "001e570c3a2a33bd32b83c3442ff2427", "text": "Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank. Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything. A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad. The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly. So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings. Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa9a6a5850d54e7f8dd7dc3c739954d3", "text": "\"When presenting negative P/E values, most brokers and equity analysts show them as \"\"n.m.\"\", which stands for not meaningful. I have never seen a P/E ratio of 0.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a1002e1a15d4cbb39de3a75c762a98e7", "text": "You can create something like that by: You'll have to determine the PE ratio manually from the financial statements. To get the PE ratio for each company, you can try the Edgar database, though I doubt it goes as far back as 1950. This blog has a graph of the DJIA PE ratio from 1929 - 2009.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1672008e1acaa64033b69362c83ac6c", "text": "P/E = price per earnings. low P/E (P/E < 4) means stock is undervalued.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84cbadbf74d336dd11ac4556a53dc886", "text": "\"If you are looking for numerical metrics I think the following are popular: Price/Earnings (P/E) - You mentioned this very popular one in your question. There are different P/E ratios - forward (essentially an estimate of future earnings by management), trailing, etc.. I think of the P/E as a quick way to grade a company's income statement (i.e: How much does the stock cost verusus the amount of earnings being generated on a per share basis?). Some caution must be taken when looking at the P/E ratio. Earnings can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Revenue can be moved between quarters, assets can be depreciated at different rates, residual value of assets can be adjusted, etc.. Knowing this, the P/E ratio alone doesn't help me determine whether or not a stock is cheap. In general, I think an affordable stock is one whose P/E is under 15. Price/Book - I look at the Price/Book as a quick way to grade a company's balance sheet. The book value of a company is the amount of cash that would be left if everything the company owned was sold and all debts paid (i.e. the company's net worth). The cash is then divided amoung the outstanding shares and the Price/Book can be computed. If a company had a price/book under 1.0 then theoretically you could purchase the stock, the company could be liquidated, and you would end up with more money then what you paid for the stock. This ratio attempts to answer: \"\"How much does the stock cost based on the net worth of the company?\"\" Again, this ratio can be \"\"massaged\"\" by the company. Asset values have to be estimated based on current market values (think about trying to determine how much a company's building is worth) unless, of course, mark-to-market is suspended. This involves some estimating. Again, I don't use this value alone in determing whether or not a stock is cheap. I consider a price/book value under 10 a good number. Cash - I look at growth in the cash balance of a company as a way to grade a company's cash flow statement. Is the cash account growing or not? As they say, \"\"Cash is King\"\". This is one measurement that can not be \"\"massaged\"\" which is why I like it. The P/E and Price/Book can be \"\"tuned\"\" but in the end the company cannot hide a shrinking cash balance. Return Ratios - Return on Equity is a measure of the amount of earnings being generated for a given amount of equity (ROE = earnings/(assets - liabilities)). This attempts to measure how effective the company is at generating earnings with a given amount of equity. There is also Return on Assets which measures earnings returns based on the company's assets. I tend to think an ROE over 15% is a good number. These measurements rely on a company accurately reporting its financial condition. Remember, in the US companies are allowed to falsify accounting reports if approved by the government so be careful. There are others who simply don't follow the rules and report whatever numbers they like without penalty. There are many others. These are just a few of the more popular ones. There are many other considerations to take into account as other posters have pointed out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f710bf3dafd6bd265175acae324ef66", "text": "if the consolidated joint venture/sub has a negative net worth, then it is backing out the minority owner's share. if another entity is taking the hit, or responsible for a hit/liability instead of you, then it should improve your valuation. do not confuse net worth with net income. BS vs IS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5fa116cdd8353e4c55f4f4fa6ca1daef", "text": "There are things that are clearly beyond me as well. Cash per share is $12.61 but the debt looks like $30 or so per share. I look at that, and the $22 negative book value and don't see where the shareholders are able to recoup anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf6b3771ad03916adfe08e2982cd346", "text": "\"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36546d11d900062f0daed28ba6f6186a", "text": "I was merely trying to be helpful - Conceptually, you have dump this idea that something is skewed. It isn't. Firm A sold for $500 (equity value aka purchase price to shareholders) + debt (zero) - cash (50) for 450. Enterprise value is the cash free, debt free sale price. The implied ev multiple is 4.5x on A - that is the answer. The other business sold for a higher multiple of 5x. If you would pile on more cash onto A, the purchase price would increase, but the EV wouldn't. The idea is to think hard about the difference between equity value and enterprise value when examining a transaction.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7fa35b3cedda44ab3cc11b982d40296e", "text": "Sedar is I guess the Canadian equivalent of EDGAR. You can find the company's filings there. Here's a picture from their filings. Can't post the link, if you go and find the filing through Sedar you'll know why (it's not as nice a site as EDGAR). The 4.8 million is from unrealized gain on biological assets. So that's what it is. The reason, I think, as to why Operating Income is a positive 2.67 even though Operating Expense and Gross Profit are both negative is because Google Finance backed into Operating Expense. Operating Income is the same between the two sources, it's just the unrealized gain that moves.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "955455502d9a711735c3029de66b96ca", "text": "The intrinsic value of a company is based on their profits year on year along with their expect future growth. A company may be posting losses, but if the market determines there's any chance they will turn a profit one day, or be a takeover target, it assigns value to those shares. In normal times, you'll observe a certain P/E range. Price to earning ratio is a simple way to say the I will pay X$ for a dollar's worth of earnings. A company that's in a flat market and not growing may command a P/E of only 10. Another company that's expanding their products and increasing market share may see a 20 P/E. Both P/Es are right for the type of company involved.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6750598140bf9aaf3175d376b470278", "text": "How would you compute the earnings for governments that are some of the main issuers of bonds and debt? When governments run deficits they would have a negative earnings ratio that makes the calculation quite hard to evaluate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbe185e1d074f6ebf2fe638058bf87b2", "text": "Market price of a stock typically trades in a range of Price/Earnings Ratio (P/E ratio). Or in other words, price of a stock = Earnings * P/E ratio Because of this direct proportionality of stock price with earnings, stock prices move in tandem with earnings.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea277e4ed379486c09e3bbc1d31fd249", "text": "Your analysis is correct. The income statement from Google states that LinkedIn made $3.4 million in 2010 - the same number you backed into by using the P/E ratio. As you point out, the company seems overvalued compared to other mature companies. There are companies, however, that posts losses and still trade on exchanges for years. How should these companies be valued? As other posters have pointed out there are many different ways to value a company. Some investors may be speculating on substantial growth. Others may be speculating on IPO hype. Amazon did not make a profit until 2003. Its stock had been around for years before that and even split many times. If you bought the stock in 1998 and still have it you would be doing quite well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d718680b0cd151f64d4cb4d777842e0", "text": "\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70e23a1994c05aa2ebbf3034d32bde75", "text": "PEG is Price/Earnings to Growth. It is calculated as Price/Earnings/Annual EPS Growth. It represents how good a stock is to buy, factoring in growth of earnings, which P/E does not. Obviously when PEG is lower, a stock is more undervalued, which means that it is a better buy, and more likely to go up. Additional References:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7aa54db9a4904567ac7fe6bc6c909344", "text": "\"You could not have two stocks both at $40, both with P/E 2, but one an EPS of $5 and the other $10. EPS = Earnings Per Share P/E = Price per share/Earnings Per Share So, in your example, the stock with EPS of $5 has a P/E of 8, and the stock with an EPS of $10 has a P/E of 4. So no, it's not valid way of looking at things, because your understanding of EPS and P/E is incorrect. Update: Ok, with that fixed, I think I understand your question better. This isn't a valid way of looking at P/E. You nailed one problem yourself at the end of the post: The tricky part is that you have to assume certain values remain constant, I suppose But besides that, it still doesn't work. It seems to make sense in the context of investor psychology: if a stock is \"\"supposed to\"\" trade at a low P/E, like a utility, that it would stay at that low P/E, and thus a $1 worth of EPS increase would result in lower $$ price increase than a stock that was \"\"supposed to\"\" have a high P/E. And that would be true. But let's game it out: Scenario Say you have two stocks, ABC and XYZ. Both have $5 EPS. ABC is a utility, so it has a low P/E of 5, and thus trades at $25/share. XYZ is a high flying tech company, so it has a P/E of 10, thus trading at $50/share. If both companies increase their EPS by $1, to $6, and the P/Es remain the same, that means company ABC rises to $30, and company XYZ rises to $60. Hey! One went up $5, and the other $10, twice as much! That means XYZ was the better investment, right? Nope. You see, shares are not tokens, and you don't get an identical, arbitrary number of them. You make an investment, and that's in dollars. So, say you'd invested $1,000 in each. $1,000 in ABC buys you 40 shares. $1,000 in XYZ buys you 20 shares. Their EPS adds that buck, the shares rise to maintain P/E, and you have: ABC: $6 EPS at P/E 5 = $30/share. Position value = 40 shares x $30/share = $1,200 XYZ: $6 EPS at P/E 10 = $60/share. Position value = 20 shares x $60/share = $1,200 They both make you the exact same 20% profit. It makes sense when you think about it this way: a 20% increase in EPS is going to give you a 20% increase in price if the P/E is to remain constant. It doesn't matter what the dollar amount of the EPS or the share price is.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f3907a06d08576cac6b23d4c24fd8b54	Who is the issuer in a derivative contract?	[ { "docid": "c6b369eb3203921bb4621f9398674518", "text": "While the issuer of the security such as a stock or bond not the short is responsible for the credit risk, the issuer and the short of a derivative is one. In all cases, it is more than likely that a trader is owed securities by an agent such as a broker or exchange or clearinghouse. Legally, only the Options Clearing Corporation clears openly traded options. With stocks and bonds, brokerages can clear with each other if approved. While a trader is expected to fund margin, the legal responsibility is shared by all in the agent chain. Clearinghouses are liable to exchanges. Exchanges are liable to members. Traders are liable to brokerages. Both ways and so on. Clearinghouses are usually ultimately liable for counterparty risk to the long counterparty, and the short counterparty is ultimately liable to the clearinghouse. Clearinghouses are not responsible for the credit risk of stocks and bonds because the issuers are not short those securities on the exchange, thus no margin is required. Credit risk for stocks and bonds is mitigated away from the clearing process.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b84ae33447008ac5abb1093edb99e991", "text": "The basic idea behind a derivative is very simple actually. It is a contract where the final value depends on (is derived from) the value of something else. Stock, for instance, is not a derivative because the contract itself is actually ownership of part of a company. Whereas car insurance is a derivative because the payout depends on the value of something else namely your (and other peoples') cars. The problem with such a simple definition is that it covers such a broad class. It covers simple contracts like Futures where the end value just depends on the price of something on a future date. But it extends to contracts complicated enough that people in finance call them Exotics. Derivatives are broadly used for two things reducing risk (sometimes called insurance) and speculation. A farmer can use derivatives to make sure she gets paid a certain amount for her corn. A banker can group a bunch of loans together and sell slices to reduce the pain of a particular loan failing. At the same time people can use the same instruments to speculate on the price of (for example) that corn or those loans and the main advantage is that they don't have to buy the corn or loans directly. Any farmer will tell you corn can be very expensive to store. Derivatives generally cause problems both individually and sometimes world wide when people don't properly understand the risks involved. The most famous example being Mortgage-backed Securities and the recent Great Recession. You can start understand the instruments and their risks by this wonderful Wikipedia article and later perhaps a used collection of CFA books which cover derivatives in great detail. Edit: Michael Grünewald mentioned Hull's text on derivatives a wonderful middle ground between Wikipedia and the CFA books that I can't believe I didn't think about myself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2021896ab5fde00bf401811c12b52f10", "text": "Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c04a867cbd486ecd371d4095f9f79b6f", "text": "There is no one answer to this question, but there are some generalities. Most exchanges make a distinction between the passive and the aggressive sides of a trade. The passive participant is the order that was resting on the market at the time of the trade. It is an order that based on its price was not executable at the time, and therefore goes into the order book. For example, I'm willing to sell 100 shares of a stock at $9.98 but nobody wants to buy that right now, so it remains as an open order on the exchange. Then somebody comes along and is willing to meet my price (I am glossing over lots of details here). So they aggressively take out my order by either posting a market-buy, or specifically that they want to buy 100 shares at either $9.98, or at some higher price. Most exchanges will actually give me, as the passive (i.e. liquidity making) investor a small rebate, while the other person is charged a few fractions of a cent. Google found NYSEArca details, and most other exchanges make their fees public as well. As of this writing the generic price charged/credited: But they provide volume discounts, and many of the larger deals do fall into another tier of volume, which provides a different price structure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8daec80263369110516fd14857c70b71", "text": "\"MD-Tech answered: The answer is in your question: derivatives are contracts so are enforced in the same way as any other contract. If the counterparty refuses to pay immediately they will, in the first instance be billed by any intermediary (Prime Broker etc.) that facilitated the contract. If they still refuse to pay the contract may stipulate that a broker can \"\"net off\"\" any outstanding payments against it or pay out using deposited cash or posted margins. The contract will usually include the broker as an interested party and so they can, but don't need to, report a default (such that this is) to credit agencies (in some jurisdictions they are required to by law). Any parties to the trade and the courts may use a debt collection agency to collect payments or seize assets to cover payment. If there is no broker or the counterparty still has not paid the bill then the parties involved (the party to the trade and any intermediaries) can sue for breach of contract. If they win (which would be expected) the counterparty will be made to pay by the legal system including, but not limited to, seizure of assets, enforced bankruptcy, and prison terms for any contempts of court rulings. All of this holds for governments who refuse to pay derivatives losses (as Argentina did in the early 20th century) but in that case it may escalate as far as war. It has never done so for derivatives contracts as far as I know but other breaches of contract between countries have resulted in armed conflict. As well as the \"\"hard\"\" results of failing to pay there are soft implications including a guaranteed fall in credit ratings that will result in parties refusing to do business with the counterparty and a separate loss of reputation that will reduce business even further. Potential employees and funders will be unwilling to become involved with such a party and suppliers will be unwilling to supply on credit. The end result in almost every way would be bankruptcy and prison sentences for the party or their senior employees. Most jurisdictions allow for board members at companies in material breach of contract to be banned from running any company for a set period as well. edit: netting off cash flows netting off is a process whereby all of a party's cash flows, positive and negative, are used to pay each other off so that only the net change is reflected in account balances, for example: company 1 cash flows netting off the total outgoings are 3M + 500k = 3.5M and total incomings are 1.2M + 1.1M + 1.2M = 3.5M so the incoming cash flows can be used to pay the outgoing cash flows leaving a net payment into company1's account of 0.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e055b576bbef8eff4d4cb63859913c6f", "text": "\"The Wikipedia page for Repurchase Agreement has two relevant pointers on this topic: The legal title for any securities used in a repo actually pass from seller to buyer during the term of the agreement. In basic terms this means that if one sells a bond on repo with a promise to buy it back, then the ownership actually transfers to the buyer for that period of time. If a coupon is paid during this time period, it can either go to the buyer or the seller. Usually, the coupon payment goes to the initial owner of the security pre-repo (our \"\"seller\"\"). But sometimes the repurchase agreement will specify otherwise. So, again in basic terms, usually the repo seller/initial security owner receives any payments made during the term of the repurchase agreement. (Both points are in the first paragraph of the section \"\"Structure and Terminology\"\".)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e77ef3115bd77fdf857b08c3fa02d8e7", "text": "Do you know what a derivative is? Did you know it is possible to own derivatives of assets that you do not own? Did you know there are derivatives of derivatives? Did you know that the derivatives market is many times larger than all the money on earth? At some point modern markets became so many steps removed from the basic principles of business that they no longer make any sense. Most trades today are done by supercomputers with high speed connections running incredibly complex algorithms invented by the most brilliant mathematicians money can buy. All of whom are studying what each other are doing and trying to manipulate each others algorithms in such a way as to make money faster and harder than the other guy. It is way beyond what any human can comprehend let alone regulate. Teams of the smartest people on earth can kind of grasp a tiny sliver of what is going on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59430118e07e163ffeb46f261970388b", "text": "No. Such companies don't exist. Derivative instruments have evolved over a period and there is a market place, stock exchange with members / broker with obligations etc clearly laid out and enforceable. If I understand correctly say the house is at 300 K. You would like a option to sell it to someone for 300 K after 6 months. Lets say you are ready to pay a premium of 10K for this option. After 6 months, if the market price is 400 K you would not exercise the option and if the market price of your house is 200 K you would exercise the option and ask the option writer to buy your house for 300 K. There are quite a few challenges, i.e. who will moderate this transaction. How do we arrive that house is valued at 300K. There could be actions taken by you to damage the property and hence its reduction in value, etc. i.e. A stock exchange like market place for house is not there and it may or may not develop in future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a68fe5d9878ac2f9c6a951bcf730c264", "text": "A derivative in finance is simply any asset whose value is based on the value of another asset or based on the value of a group of assets. A derivative contract is a type of contract (usually a 'standardized contract') with specific payout instruction based on the price changes of a different asset. The basic idea is that it becomes easier to make a claim to an asset or property (and profit from this claim), without needing to physically transfer it (or even the title to said asset), and use much less capital to do so (reduce risk). They become problematic when multiple people may have claims to the real asset, or when the value of the derivatives changes very quickly or are hard to calculate. There are also liquidity problems the further you get from the real asset. This is not a problem for all kinds of derivatives contracts. And you must recognize that derivatives are used colloquially in a way that has nothing to do with reality to cause fear in people/investors that are not financially savvy. Many derivatives also have dubious or no economic purposes such that regulators don't allow them to be traded since they can't see how it is different from gambling. This is seen in financial markets that are less liberalized or cultures with puritanical backgrounds. Typically the trick is to convince regulators that the derivative or financial product helps with reducing risk and hedging and it will get approved. I've mentioned some terminology, but this depends specifically on what kind of derivatives contract you become interested in. Swaps, Credit Default Swaps, Futures, Options, Options on Futures, Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, Inverse Leveraged Exchange Traded Funds, warrants, and more all have their own terminology. How to trade them in a simulation? It all depends on which financial product you really become interested in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a16dce6dfae89c8957a21dedaf4f3116", "text": "\"Q: A: Everyone that is short is paying interest to the owners of the shares that the short seller borrowed. Although this quells your conundrum, this is also unrelated to the term. Interest in this context is just the number. In the options market, each contract also has an open interest, which tells you how many of that contract is being held. For your sake, think of it as \"\"how many are interested\"\", but really its just a completely different context.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86f8b680288b3148d009e292802c9b40", "text": "Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe0000ec75eb49b8dd3971dad3a268c4", "text": "Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2f37bc6af67f10fac5bbeda9a07bc0d", "text": "\"Institutions and market makers tend to try and stay delta neutral, meaning that for every options contract they buy or write, they buy or sell the equivalent underlying asset. This, as a theory, is called max pain, which is more of an observation of this behavior by retail investors. This as a reality is called delta hedging done by market makers and institutional investors. The phenomenom is that many times a stock gets pinned to a very even number at a particular price on options expiration days (like 500.01 or 499.99 by closing bell). At options expiration dates, many options contracts are being closed (instutitions and market makers are typically on the other side of those trades, to keep liquidity), so for every one standard 100 share contract the market maker wrote, they bought 100 shares of the underlying asset, to remain delta neutral. When the contract closes (or get rid of the option) they sell that 100 shares of the underlying asset. At mass volume of options traded, this would cause noticeable downward pressure, similarly for other trades it would cause upward pressure as institutions close their short positions against options they had bought. The result is a pinned stock right above or below an expiration that previously had a lot of open interest. This tends to happen in more liquid stocks, than less liquid ones, to answer that question. As they have more options series and more strike prices. No, this would not be illegal, in the US attempting to \"\"mark the close\"\" is supposedly prohibited but this wouldn't count as it, the effect of derivatives on stock prices is far beyond the SEC's current enforcement regime :) although an active area of research\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4c507a80e084edb607b3096f6e1e8cf", "text": "It's a good answer. I was alluding to cryptocurrency such as bitcoin which was a pretty genius invention (blockchain and mining) to solve the honesty problem (counterparty risk) you outlined when there's no trusted middleman to help keep people honest. Sounds like a dodgy cat though!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec63ef2e0b3d6cf5381eba75dac252f5", "text": "A derivative is a financial asset (read: contract) whose value is determined by the value of some other asset. Talking about derivatives in general is impossible, options and FRAs (eg) are entirely different. Is there any type of derivative you are particularly interested in?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7ee5da8ef0ba3ab0ff51a5b8b03a78e", "text": "\"Every one of those articles correctly point out that $3.7 trillion is the size of a bond market. Not one calls them a \"\"business worth $3.7 trillion.\"\" The size of a market is not not the value of a business. I guess even after all this you're still unable to grasp that. His quote: \"\"The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion\"\". Are you really too dumb to understand the difference between \"\"a business worth $3.7 trillion\"\" and the value of an entire market? The derivatives market is \"\"worth\"\" on the order of hundreds of trillions. Which businesses exactly are worth that much? This is the type of ignorance that Taibbi articles relies upon to make them work. I'm done here since you see two numbers that are the same and conclude they mean the same thing.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
acfc2ce541a94b3b0b1996682e46d5e4	Can I save our credit with a quickie divorce?	[ { "docid": "5016a4a2d397b4ae8ad6ee30a58fc3f1", "text": "If you're not insolvent, doing something like this is both a moral and legal hazard: When you are insolvent, the tax and moral hazard issues can be a non-issue. Setting up a scenario that makes you appear to be insolvent is where the fraud comes in. If you decide to go down this road, spend a few thousand dollars on competent legal advice.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26f799670bf8a32dc2cc09fa3609cb0e", "text": "My advice to you? Act like responsible adults and owe up to your financial commitments. When you bought your house and took out a loan from the bank, you made an agreement to pay it back. If you breach this agreement, you deserve to have your credit score trashed. What do you think will happen to the $100K+ if you decide to stiff the bank? The bank will make up for its loss by increasing the mortgage rates for others that are taking out loans, so responsible borrowers get to subsidize those that shirk their responsibilities. If you were in a true hardship situation, I would be inclined to take a different stance. But, as you've indicated, you are perfectly able to make the payments -- you just don't feel like it. Real estate fluctuates in value, just like any other asset. If a stock I bought drops in value, does the government come and bail me out? Of course not! What I find most problematic about your plan is that not only do you wish to breach your agreement, but you are also looking for ways to conceal your breach. Please think about this. Best of luck with your decision.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cd7b2260cf22b2b28ded192e30046001", "text": "\"I can only share with you my happened with my wife and I. First, and foremost, if you think you need to protect your assets for some reason then do so. Be open and honest about it. If we get a divorce, X stays with me, and Y stays with you. This seems silly, even when your doing it, but it's important. You can speak with a lawyer about this stuff as you need to, but get it in writing. Now I know this seems like planning for failure, but if you feel that foo is important to you, and you want to retain ownership of foo no mater what, then you have to do this step. It also works both ways. You can use, with some limitations, this to insulate your new family unit from your personal risks. For example, my business is mine. If we break up it stays mine. The income is shared, but the business is mine. This creates a barrier that if someone from 10 years ago sues my business, then my wife is protected from that. Keep in mind, different countries different rules. Next, and this is my advise. Give up on \"\"his and hers\"\" everything. It's just \"\"ours\"\". Together you make 5400€ decide how to spend 5400€ together. Pick your goals together. The pot is 5400€. End of line. It doesn't matter how much from one person or how much from another (unless your talking about mitigating losses from sick days or injuries or leave etc.). All that matters is that you make 5400€. Start your budgeting there. Next setup an equal allowance. That is money, set aside for non-sense reasons. I like to buy video games, my wife likes to buy books. This is not for vacation, or stuff together, but just little, tiny stuff you can do for your self, without asking \"\"permission\"\". The number should be small, and equal. Maybe 50€. Finally setup a budget. House Stuff 200€, Car stuff 400€. etc. etc. then it doesn't matter who bought the house stuff. You only have to coordinate so that you don't both buy house stuff. After some time (took us around 6 months) you will find out how this works and you can add on some rules. For example, I don't go to Best Buy alone. I will spend too much on \"\"house stuff\"\". My wife doesn't like to make the budget, so I handle that, then we go over it. Things like that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6635e399ceaee7d6596e7459a9a69b3", "text": "As per Chad's request, I recommend that you keep at least one card in each name as primary card holder, with the spouse being the secondary card holder, most easily done by each adding the spouse as the secondary holder to his/her own card. Since credit reporting is usually in the name of the primary credit card holder, this allows both to continue to have credit history, important when the marriage ends (in death or divorce as the case may be). When you travel, each should carry only the cards on which he/she is the primary card holder; not all cards. This helps in case of a wallet or purse being stolen; you have to report only one set of cards as lost and request their replacement, and you have a set of cards that you can use in the mean time (as long as you are not in different places when the loss occurs).", "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": "737a84c075b317740b52a0f932e0261a", "text": "\"It is possible to achieve a substitute for refinancing, but because of the \"\"short\"\" life of cars at least relative to housing, there are no true refinancings. First, the entire loan will not be able to be refinanced. The balance less approximately 80% of the value of the car will have to be repaid. Cars depreciate by something like 20% per year, so $2,000 will have to be repaid. Now, you should be able to get a loan if your boyfriend has good credit, but the interest rate will not drop too much further from the current loan's rate because of your presumably bad credit rating, assumed because of your current interest rate. While this is doable, this is not a good strategy if you intend to have a long term relationship. One of the worst corruptors of a relationship is money. It will put a strain on your relationship and lower the odds of success. The optimal strategy, if the monthly payments are too high, is to try to sell the car so to buy a cheaper car. The difficulty here is that the bank will not allow this if balance of the loan exceeds the proceeds from the sale, so putting as much money towards paying the balance to allow a sale is best. As a side note, please insure your car against occurrences such as theft and damage with a deductible low enough to justify the monthly payment. It is a terrible position to have a loan, no car, and no collateral against the car.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b8168abb311c5dc9717a049d9a4fb9ca", "text": "I would not be concerned about the impact to your credit rating. You already have an excellent credit score, and the temporary change to your utilization will have minimal impact to your score. If you really need to make this $2500 purchase and you have the money in the bank to pay for it, I would not recommend borrowing this money. Only put it on the credit card if you plan on paying it off in full without paying interest. Let me ask you this: Why do you want to keep this $2500 in the bank? It certainly isn't earning you anything significant. My guess is that you'd like to keep it there for an emergency. Well, is this $2500 purchase an emergency? If it is necessary, then spend the money. If not, then save up the money until you have enough to make the purchase. It doesn't make sense to keep money for an emergency in the bank, but then when one comes up, to leave the money in the bank and pay interest on your emergency purchase. If you make this emergency purchase and another emergency comes up, you can always (if necessary) borrow the money at that time. It doesn't make sense to borrow money before you need it. That having been said, I would encourage you to build up your emergency fund so that you have enough money in there to handle things like this without completely depleting your savings account. 3 to 6 months of expenses is the general recommendation for your emergency fund. Then if something unplanned comes up, you'll have the money in the bank without having to borrow and pay interest.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89739766c7339ba2a9cc64de0444c12d", "text": "I know you say you are aware of secured and unsecured debt and you've made your decision. Did you do the numbers? You will pay 44k over the life of the mortgage for that 24k (Based on 4.5% APR mortgage). Once you refinance your mortgage, do you plan on using credit for a while? Lots of Americans are hyperfocused on credit scores. The only times it affects your life are when you finance something, when you apply to rent a house or apartment, and sometimes when you apply for a job. Credit score should not be a factor in this decision. You're borrowing the money at a lower rate to pay off the high rate cards because you want to pay less in interest. Considering #1 is there any reason NOT to pay off the cards immediately, if not sooner?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79febff37005fe840f1be5912c0f914c", "text": "\"You say Also I have been the only one with an income in our household for last 15 years, so for most of our marriage any debts have been in my name. She has a credit card (opened in 1999) that she has not used for years and she is also a secondary card holder on an American Express card and a MasterCard that are both in my name (she has not used the cards as we try to keep them only for emergencies). This would seem to indicate that the dealer is correct. Your wife has no credit history. You say that you paid off her student loans some years back. If \"\"some years\"\" was more than seven, then they have dropped off her credit report. If that's the most recent credit activity, then she effectively has none. Even if you get past that, note that she also doesn't have any income, which makes her a lousy co-signer. There's no real circumstance where you couldn't pay for the car but she could based on the historical data. She would have to get a job first. Since they had no information on her whatsoever, they probably didn't even get to that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc4fb5e150939da5af1384a61a75eeb", "text": "On the face, this appears a sound method to manage long run cumulative interest, but there are some caveats. Maxing out credit cards will destroy your credit rating. You will receive no more reasonable offers for credit, only shady ones. Though your credit rating will rise the moment you bring the balance back down to 10%, even with high income, it's easy to overshoot the 8 months, and then a high interest rate kicks in because of the low credit rating. Further, maxing out credit cards will encourage credit card lenders to begin cutting limits and at worse demand early payment. Now, after month 6 hits, your financial payment obligations skyrocket. A sudden jolt is never easy to manage. This will increase risk of missing a payment, a disaster for such hair line financing. In short, the probability of decimating your financial structure is high for very little benefit. If you are confident that you can pay off $4,000 in 8 months then simply apply those payments to the student loan directly, cutting out the middle man. Your creditors will be pleased to see your total liabilities fall at a high rate while your utilization remains small, encouraging them to offer you more credit and lower rates. The ideal credit card utilization rate is 10%, so it would be wise to use that portion to repay the student loans. Building up credit will allow you to use the credit as an auxiliary cushion when financial disaster strikes. Keeping an excellent credit rating will allow you to finance the largest home possible for your money. Every percentage point of mortgage interest can mean the difference between a million USD home and a $750,000 one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4515ff7c68751854ae690a9c5f902ff0", "text": "If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c5a5ed7bb766e7dc97275d21ffc8f2e", "text": "I know one piece of information that can help you (in a macabe sort of way) - from what my wife has told me, if your partner dies, you are not responsible for paying for their debts, especially student loans. I expect the same thing for credit cards - if someone were to happen to charge $2,000 on their credit card and get hit by a bus, the credit card company can cajole and plead for you to pay for it, but you have no legal requirement to do so. Unfortunately I do not have as much information about as if you spouse is living.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "377cac873084e349792849a9b7b8c278", "text": "Some already mentioned that you could pay with your savings and use the credit card as an emergency buffer. However, if you think there is a reasonable chance that your creditcard gets revoked and that you need cash quickly, here is a simple alternative:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "598153a7fcb075f9ecd75da3e70bcd10", "text": "Why not use the money and pay the cards off? You say you'll have no money to your name, and while that's true, you do have $36,000 in available credit should an emergency arise. If it were me, I'd pay them off, make every effort to live on the cash I have without using credit and leave the cards open as a source of emergency funds (new home theaters are not emergencies!) until I got enough savings built up to not have to use credit at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b635afd94d43e82e31a07520949534a0", "text": "This is probably a good time to note that credit is not a liquid asset, and not an emergency fund. Credit can be revoked or denied at any time, and Murphy's law states that you may have issues with credit when everything else goes wrong too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93cfc7f27a3b137773cb171345b602eb", "text": "I doubt it. If you have a good track record with your car loan, that will count for a lot more than the fact that you don't have it anymore. When you look for a house, your debt load will be lower without the car loan, which may help you get the mortgage you want. Just keep paying your credit card bills on time and your credit rating will improve month by month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc8424217a86294ba50e8a485dea0f79", "text": "\"Pay cash. You have the cash to pay for it now, but God forbid something happen to you or your wife that requires you to dip into that cash in the future. In such an event, you could end up paying a lot more for your home theater than you planned. The best way to keep your consumer credit card debt at zero (and protect your already-excellent credit) is to not add to the number of credit cards you already have. At least in the U.S., interest rates on saving accounts of any sort are so low, I don't think it's worthwhile to include as a deciding factor in whether not you \"\"borrow\"\" at 0% instead of buying in cash.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e427d600c2ea8ce0d6af13ad0d6c402e	Saving money in college while paying for college	[ { "docid": "0c809eb59878358e22c01f99dc8b64c5", "text": "I wouldn't recommend trying to chase a good return on this money. I'd just put it into a savings account of some sort. If you can get a better interest rate with an online account, then feel free to do that. I'd recommend using this money to pay for as much of college out of pocket as you can. The more student loans you can avoid, the better. As @John Bensin said, trying to make money in the stock market in such a short time is too risky. For this money, you want to preserve the principal to pay for school, or to pay down your loans when you get out. If you find you have more money than you need to finish paying for school, then I'd suggest setting some aside for an emergency fund, setting aside enough to pay your loans off when you're out of school, saving for future purchases (house, car, etc), and then start investing (maybe for retirement in a Roth IRA or something like that).", "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": "105fbbdc7d6044068263a6a89a7e4217", "text": "Graduating from college is probably one of the most fulfilling triumphs you’ll ever achieve in your entire life. However, that joy also brings bigger responsibilities in life that could affect tax time too. This specific time in your life will have a lot to offer and before the winds of change take you to wherever you dream of, here are some advices from [Southbourne Tax Group](http://www.thesouthbournegroup.com/) to make your taxes easier where you can get a refund during filing time and save money as well. If your modified adjusted gross income is below $80,000 and you’re single, up to $2,500 of the interest portion of your student loan payments can be tax deductible, and below $160,000 for married person filing jointly. Job hunting expenses can be tax deductible too but there are exceptions such as expenses involved in your search for a new job in a new career field and working full-time for the first time. Major tax breaks are expected in case you are moving to a new and different city for your first job. Get a jump start on retirement savings with your company’s 401(k). Each year, you can secure up to $18,000 from your income taxes by contributing on one. If you have a family coverage, you could secure $6,750 from contributing to a health savings account in case you are enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. And if you are single, you can secure up to $3,400. Placing your money into a flexible spending account could keep an added $2,600 out of your taxable income. Getting big deductions for business expenses is possible if you are planning to be a freelancer or to be your own boss as a new college graduate. Southbourne Group also advises saving at least 25% of what you’re earning for the IRS. Research more about lifetime learning credit and understand its importance. You can claim up to $2,000 of a tax credit for post-secondary work at eligible educational institutions. This is possible if your adjusted gross income is below $65,000 as a single filer, or below $131,000 as a married person filing jointly. Saving money has a lot of benefits and one of which is cutting your tax bill. If you’re a married person filing jointly and have an adjusted gross income of less than $62,000, you may qualify for the saver’s credit, while for a single filer, it should be below $31,000. That can reduce your tax bill by up to 50% of the first $2,000 if you’re a single filer, or $4,000 if you’re a married person filing jointly you contribute to an eligible retirement plan. Southbourne Tax Group doesn’t want you to overspend on tax software and getting professional help in this regard. The firm suggests using the free packages from trusted tax software companies if your tax situation is quite simple. Get that professional help at Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, which can help you meet with a pro at little or no cost.", "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": "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": "81939bf394cf030c75d5ae0710f414b5", "text": "Saving for school is [fundamentally] no different than saving for any other major purchase: in addition to some of the great answers already provided, here are a couple other thoughts: Just to have the [simplified] numbers handy: If you can increase that to $2000/yr, after 18 years: One final thought - I would personally avoid the 529 plans because if your child decides to not go to school (eg goes in the Coast Guard, decides to be a farmer, enters the Peace Corps, etc), you're penalized on withdrawal, whereas with any other savings/investment methodology, you won't have those penalties.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d48235efe80861624e3349ef501bda4", "text": "\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \"\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\"\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beb115f4b44422283c389edc50a1b8ed", "text": "Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "576cccc84488349299efa67fd9a2de45", "text": "529 is good. Though, I would avoid other kinds of investments in kids names and or setting up accounts that are too complex or difficult to use as college costs will come in may aspects starting application fees and travel expenses when looking for college as well as housing and allowance spending.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74d11f73384f97df8cd325a8fd3f3011", "text": "\"First, it's clear from your story that you very likely should be able to receive some financial aid. That may be in the form of loans or, better, grants in which you just get free money to attend college. For example, a Pell grant. You won't get all you'd need for a free ride this way, but you can really make a dent in what you'd pay. The college may likely also provide financial aid to you. In order to get any of this, though, you have to fill out a FAFSA. There are deadlines for this for each state and each college (there you would ask individually). I'd get looking into that as soon as you can. Do student loans have to be paid monthly? Any loan is a specific agreement between a lender and a borrower, so any payment terms could apply, such as bimonthly or quarterly. But monthly seems like the most reasonable assumption. Generally, you should assume the least favorable (reasonably likely) terms for you, so that you are prepared for a worst-case scenario. Let's say monthly. Can I just, as I had hoped, borrow large sums of money and only start paying them after college? Yes. That is a fair summary of all a student loan is. Importantly, though, some loans are federal government subsidized loans for which the interest on the loan is paid for you as long as you stay in college + 6 months (although do check that is the current situation). Unsubsidized loans may accrue interest from the start of the loan period. If you have the option, obviously try hard to get the subsidized loans as the interest can be significant. I made a point to only take subsidized loans. WARNING: Student loans currently enjoy a (nearly?) unique status in America as being one of the only loan types that are not forgivable in bankruptcy. This means that if you leave college with $100,000 in debt that begins accruing interest, there is no way for you to get out of it short of fleeing the country or existence. And at that point the creditors may come after your mother for the balance. These loans can balloon into outrageous amounts due to compounding interest. Please have a healthy fear of student loans. For more on this, listen to this hour long radio program about this. Would a minimum wage job help, Of course it will \"\"help\"\" but will it \"\"help enough\"\"? That depends on how much you work. If you make $7.50/hr and work 20 hrs/week for all but 3 weeks of the year, after taxes you will be adding about $6,000 to offset your costs. In 3 years of college (*see below), that's $18,000, which, depending on where you go, is not bad at helping defray costs. If you are at full-time (40 hrs), then it is $12k/yr or $36k toward defraying costs. These numbers are nothing to sniff at. Do you have any computer/web/graphics skills? It's possible you could find ways to make more than minimum wage if you learn some niche IT industry skill. (If I could go back and re-do those years I wouldn't have wasted much time delivering pizzas and would have learned HTML in the 90s and would have potentially made some significant money.) would college and full-time job be manageable together? That's highly specific to each situation (which job? how far a commute to it? which major? how efficient are you? how easily do you learn?) but I would say that, for the most part, it's not a good idea, not only for the academic-achievement side of it, but the personal-enrichment aspect of college. Clubs, sports, relationships, activities, dorm bull sessions, all that good stuff, they deserve their space and time and it'd be a shame to miss out on that because you're on the 2nd shift at Wal-Mart 40hrs/week. How do I find out what scholarships, grants, and financial aid I can apply for? Are you in a high school with a career or guidance counselor? If so, go to that person about this as a start. If not, there are tons of resources out there. Public libraries should have huge directories of scholarships. The Federal Student Loan program has a website. There are also a lot of resources online found by just searching Google for scholarships--though do be careful about any online sources (including this advice!). Sermon: Lastly, please carefully consider the overall cost vs. benefit to you. College in 2012 is anything but cheap. A typical price for a textbook is $150 or more. Tuition and board can range over $40k at private colleges. There is a recent growing call for Americans to re-think the automatic nature of going to college considering the enormous financial burden it puts many families under. Charles Murray, for one, has put out a book suggesting that far too many students go to college now, to society's and many individuals' detriment (he's a controversial thinker, but I think some of his points are valid and actually urgent). With all that said, consider ways to go to college but keep costs down. Public colleges in your state will almost always be significantly cheaper than private or out-of-state. Once there, aim for As and Bs--don't cheat yourself out of what you pay for. And lastly, consider a plan in which you complete college in three years, by attending summer courses. This website has a number of other options for helping to reduce the cost of college.\"", "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": "bbbae708e8d534c818cea9cd4c761ba3", "text": "I'm not expert here, but a method used by quite a few people I went to school with was to save as much as possible before starting and continue to save as you go. Better explained, if you are able to save a years worth of tuition, or in a better case, save even more, you can pay as you, or in this case your child, attend(s) classes, and continue to add money to that account. If your child can hold down a part-time job during school, as many college students do, they can even help by saving some money into that account, and it can allow them to exit college free and clear of any loans, or at least mostly clear, should you fall a little short. It's not the best option, but given a short time frame, it can work, and I've seen it work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39759f3a694b4c798f6717f6d8314396", "text": "\"This is a tricky question, because the financial aid system can create odd incentives. Good schools tend to price themselves above and beyond any reasonable middle-class ability to save and then offer financial aid, much of it in the form of internal \"\"grants\"\" or \"\"loans\"\". If you think about it, the internal grant is more of a discount than a grant since no money need have ever existed to \"\"fund\"\" the grant. The actual price to the parents is based on financial aid paperwork and related rules, perhaps forming a college price-setting cartel. It is these rules that need to be considered when creating a savings plan. Suppose it is $50k/year to send your kids to the best school admitting them. Thats $200k for the 4 years. Suppose you had $50k now to save instead of $10K, and are wondering whether to put it in your son's college savings (whether or not you can do so in a tax advantaged way) or to pay down the mortgage. If you put it in your kids savings, and the $50k becomes $75k over time, that $75k will be used up in a year and a half as the financial aid system will suck it dry first before offering you much help. On the other hand, if you put the $50k on paying down the mortgage [provided the mortgage is \"\"healthy\"\" not upside down], your house payment will still be the same when your kids go to college. The financial aid calculations will consider that the kid has no savings, and allocate a \"\"grant\"\" and some loans the first year and a parental portion that you might be able to tap with a home equity loan or work overtime. Generally, you should also be encouraging your kids to excel and perhaps obtain academic scholarships or at least obtain some great opportunities. A large college savings fund might be as counterproductive as a zero fund. They shouldn't be expecting to breeze through some party school with a nice pad and car, homework assistance, and beer money. Unless they are good at a sport, like maybe football -- in which case you won't need to be the provider. It is not obvious how much the optimal ESA amount is. It might not be $0. Saving like crazy in there probably isn't the best thing to do, either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ce80c80a7cd0b8c969e1cc8be545d5d", "text": "\"Two points. Someone has mentioned \"\"don't do the starbucks coffee\"\" thing... Try not to pay for fast food, either. They might not like you having cooking equipment in your dorm, but things like sandwiches and cereal don't require that (and often there is a common kitchen). Did you know oatmeal is so cheap it's basically free? Also dirt cheap and ridiculously nutritious: beans, lentils. There's certainly the \"\"ramen noodles\"\" stereotype but even beyond that, if you can learn how to cook a few decent things for yourself, you can do quite well. Oh, did I mention rice? On a related note, skip the bottled water and the sodas. (Especially the sodas, which can do you little good.) Snack on vegetables (carrots, celery, etc). They're not always cheaper than the cheapest of the cheap snacks that exist, but they're actually good for you. A big bag of carrots will give you a lot to munch and is reasonably cost-effective. Besides, I know you need more of them in your diet. Really. Finally, consider a summer job / internship. Not only will it earn you money now, but it might land you a much nicer job straight out of college, saving you years of earning less. (This goes triple for anyone studying computer science/engineering, by the way!!!) If that doesn't work out, consider summer-session classes. Sometimes they can work out cheaper than the regular kind.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eba5c2ba274df6502e56ad38243d40fb", "text": "I'm not a 'rule of thumb' guy, but here, I'd suggest that if you can set aside 10% of your income each year for college, that would be great. That turns out to be $900/mo. In 15 years, if you saw an 8% CAGR, you'd have $311K which happens to be in your range of expenses. And you'd still have time to go as the baby won't graduate for 22(?) years. (Yup, 10% is a good rule of thumb for your income and 3 kids) Now, on the other hand, I'd research what grants you'd be able to get if you came up short. If instead of saving a dime, you funded your own retirement and the spouse's IRA if she's not working, and time the mortgage to pay it off in 15 years from now, the lack of liquid funds actually runs in your favor. But, I'm not an expect on this, just second guessing my own fully funded college account for my daughter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd72ace7ca4fe69d47d824d2b734633", "text": "Stay away from college debt. You can't default on it. Your wages will be garnished if you're unable to pay it back. Even when your and old man, they will garnish your social security money. In effect college debt makes you an indentured servant. Maybe even worse than the 7 years of servitude people served in early America. Lots of grads are working in restaurants and retail stores.... even some computer science grads. There is great risk in the college investment compared to 40 years ago when it was a sure thing. Do not take debt for college. If that means you can't go to college then so be it. You're future self will than you.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
bd1f5f9843fe9ca19dd084282b71f3e3	Can you use external money to pay trading commissions in tax-free and tax-deferred accounts?	[ { "docid": "c8f4fabdc9a643077c75d688ca57939a", "text": "According to Publication 590, broker's commissions for stock transactions within an IRA cannot be paid in addition to the IRA contribution(s), but they are deductible as part of the contribution, or add to the basis if you are making a nondeductible contribution to a Traditional IRA. (Top of Page 10, and Page 12, column 1, in the 2012 edition of Pub 590). On the other hand, trustees' administrative fees can be paid from outside the IRA if they are billed separately, and are even deductible as a Miscellaneous Deduction on Schedule A of your income tax return (subject to the 2% of AGI threshold). A long time ago, when my IRA account balances were much smaller, I used to get a bill from my IRA custodian for a $20 annual administrative fee which I paid separately (but never got to deduct due to the 2% threshold). My custodian also allowed the option of doing nothing in which case the $20 would be collected from (and thus reduce) the amount of money in my IRA. Note that this does not apply to the expenses charged by the mutual funds that you might have in your IRA; these expenses are treated the same as brokerage commissions and must be paid from within the IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f55e29b5b419a1fa47ae9f6fc7d40bd7", "text": "Nice idea. When I started my IRAs, I considered this as well, and the answer from the broker was that this was not permitted. And, aside from transfers from other IRAs or retirement accounts, you can't 'deposit' shares to the IRA, only cash.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a6b6f34e6af19228c13d0ee80944cdd1", "text": "Interesting, but I don't think we are talking the same thing. This seems to say that that the fund itself doesn't have the rule applied: I.E. the MF can't get hit with the 5% commission when you buy it. That makes sense. What I'm asking though is that when my (say) American Fund that I own already does a rebalance, the constituent holdings change. Those securities are not exempt from the rule and thus when they are transacted can have commissions applied. As a matter of fact the broker for those securities has no idea if the fund is eligible or not. Where did you get this from? As I'm. It studying for a series 7 I'm probably missing some foundational sources.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64b9a133df2ccc0d6dd74246e71482b3", "text": "So, my question is what is the limit below which I don't have to pay taxes while trading. I just invested $10. Do I have to pay taxes for this too? what are the slabs? Any income is subject to tax. That said, investing $10 will probably not generate much of income, even at the discount brokers most of it will be wasted on commissions... I am also having an assistantship. So is holding two sources of income legitimate? Thanks You can have as many sources of income as you want. Working is what is restricted when you're on a student visa. As long as you don't open a business as a day trader or start working for someone trading stocks - you're fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "065db451d8f3c8bfac3ce4d576a099a7", "text": "There's no limitation on what you can invest in, including trading stocks (as long as trading is not a business activity, like day-trading or investing for others). You just need to make sure you have a tax ID (either ITIN or SSN) and pay taxes on all the gains and dividends. Also, consider your home country tax laws, since you're still tax resident in your home country (most likely).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccd605b3bc6a3e996150716450fc9cee", "text": "\"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "651eb9014ce2244d382da1151926ee37", "text": "Yes, this is a way to avoid the pattern day trader regulation. The only downside being that your broker will have different commission rates and your capital will be split amongst several places.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c7beebb3549c75c9dd76f80232f5e9c", "text": "What you are looking for is a 1031 exchange. https://www.irs.gov/uac/like-kind-exchanges-under-irc-code-section-1031 Whenever you sell business or investment property and you have a gain, you generally have to pay tax on the gain at the time of sale. IRC Section 1031 provides an exception and allows you to postpone paying tax on the gain if you reinvest the proceeds in similar property as part of a qualifying like-kind exchange. Gain deferred in a like-kind exchange under IRC Section 1031 is tax-deferred, but it is not tax-free. You may also sell your house for bitcoin and record the sales price on the deed with an equal or lesser amount that you bought it for.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a338ebdb92ecbd338fe1fd5cc1f2582", "text": "Generally not, however some brokers may allow it. My previous CFD Broker - CMC Markets, used to allow you to adjust the leverage from the maximum allowed for that stock (say 5%) to 100% of your own money before you place a trade. So obviously if you set it at 100% you pay no interest on holding open long positions overnight. If you can't find a broker that allows this (as I don't think there would be too many around), you can always trade within your account size. For example, if you have an account size of $20,000 then you only take out trades that have a face value up to the $20,000. When you become more experienced and confident you can increase this to 2 or 3 time your account size. Maybe, if you are just starting out, you should first open a virtual account to test your strategies out and get used to using leverage. You should put together a trading plan with position sizing and risk management before starting real trading, and you can test these in your virtual trading before putting real money on the table. Also, if you want to avoid leverage when first starting out, you could always start trading the underlying without any leverage, but you should still have a trading plan in place first.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36b316dae8931cbafc1732ebfdf62123", "text": "The US has a tax treaty with Ukraine (unlike Singapore), so you should be in a similar situation to Canadians etc. who choose to use a foreign broker. You'll have to file a W8BEN to reduce withholding taxes, and they'll want identification documentation and so on, and I imagine they'll want a wire transfer to fund the account. In many places now they are requiring permission to share information with the tax authorities in your home country (you waive your privacy), but that may not be true with Ukraine, and should not be a problem in any case if you're being upfront.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6335dc2c13c1699721868158f6084e78", "text": "\"Yes you can, but to do so successfully, you need lots of money. You also need to be able to meet the criteria for being classified as a \"\"professional trader\"\" by the IRS. (If not, you'll be buried in paperwork.) The fact that you're asking about it here probably means that you do not have enough money to succeed at HFT.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abd138c01e6d5a971c99c8f92350dfec", "text": "\"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a \"\"free advice\"\" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "219dc33bbbdbc9a3d247d551912f5e14", "text": "\"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "923403f0704091c3e4cf237f5f4586ce", "text": "Elaborating on kelsham's answer: You buy 100 shares XYZ at $1, for a total cost of $100 plus commissions. You sell 100 shares XYZ at $2, for a total income of $200 minus commissions. Exclusive of commissions, your capital gain is $100 for this trade, and you will pay taxes on that. Even if you proceed to buy 200 shares XYZ at $1, reinvesting all your income from the sale, you still owe taxes on that $100 gain. The IRS has met this trick before.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4be1712bc31d7fa78eee37ac2c171b30", "text": "\"Your question asks \"\"how\"\" but \"\"if\"\" may be your issue. Most companies will not permit an external transfer while still employed, or under a certain age, 55 or so. If yours is one of the rare companies that permits a transfer, you simply open an IRA with the broker of your choice. Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, or a dozen others. That broker will give you the paperwork you need to fill out, and they initiate the transfer. I assume you want an IRA in which you can invest in stocks or funds of your choosing. A traditional IRA. The term \"\"self-directed\"\" has another meaning, often associated with the account that permits real estate purchases inside the account. The brokers I listed do not handle that, those custodians have a different business model and are typically smaller firms with fewer offices, not country-wide.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c69177e47bd21ad594a45558a393d9f", "text": "Assuming that the NRE (NonResident External) account is in good standing, that is, you are still eligible to have an NRE account because your status as a NonResident of India has not changed in the interim, you can transfer money back from your NRE account to your US accounts without any problems. But be aware that you bear the risk of getting back a much smaller amount than you invested in the NRE account because of devaluation of the Indian Rupee (INR). NRE accounts are held in INR, and whatever amounts (in INR) that you choose to withdraw will be converted to US$ at the exchange rate then applicable. Depending on whether it is the Indian bank that is doing the conversion and sending money by wire to your US bank, or you are depositing a cheque in INR in your US bank, you may be charged miscellaneous service fees also. To answer a question that you have not asked as yet, there is no US tax on the transfer of the money. The interest paid on your deposits into the NRE account are not taxable income to you in India, but are taxable income to you in the US, and so I hope that you have been declaring this income each year on Schedule B of your income tax return, and also reporting that you have accounts held abroad, as required by US law. See for example, this question and its answer and also this question and its answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd30774c11683c76e41a6c69207b2777", "text": "I was going to comment on the commission-free ETF answer, which I agree with, but I don't have enough reputation. TD Ameritrade has a list of commission-free ETFs and has no minimum deposit required to open an account. Another idea is to keep gifts in cash until a certain threshold is reached. For instance, $100 for birthday, $100 for Christmas, $100 for next birthday, $100 for next Christmas, now execute the trade. Sharebuilder has $4 scheduled trades, so you'd be at about 1% overhead for that. If other people give money, you'll reach the threshold faster of course. For what it's worth, I do something similar for my 2 nieces. I combined their account and prepay Christmas plus birthday, so I do 1 trade a year. I have my account at Sharebuilder because my idea predated the commission-free ETFs that are now pretty popular. I should really transfer the account... hm.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
fdbadbb2260d79b92a2a9516970422f0	Why have U.S. bank interest rates been so low for the past few years?	[ { "docid": "735cdacb94f03923d7db3c732b06db0f", "text": "\"These rates are so low because the cost of money is so low. Specifically, two rates are near zero. The Federal Reserve discount rate, which is \"\"the interest rate charged to commercial banks and other depository institutions on loans they receive from their regional Federal Reserve Bank's lending facility--the discount window.\"\" The effective federal funds rate, which is the rate banks pay when they trade balances with each other through the Federal Reserve. Banks want to profit on the loans they make, like mortgage loans. To do so, they try to maximize the difference between the rates they charge on mortgages and other loans (revenue), and the rates they pay savings account holders, the Federal Reserve or other banks to obtain funds (expenses). This means that the rates they offer to pay are as close to these rates as possible. As the charts shows, both rates have been cut significantly since the start of the recession, either through open market operations (the federal funds rate) or directly (the discount rate). The discount rate is set directly by the regional Federal Reserve banks every 14 days. In most cases, the federal funds rate is lower than the discount rate, in order to encourage banks to lend money to each other instead of borrowing it from the Fed. In the past, however, there have been rare instances where the federal funds rate has exceeded the discount rate, and it's been cheaper for banks to borrow money directly from the Fed than from each other.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b600b2213055e997b493a866330d0d96", "text": "There's two competing forces at work, and they are at work worldwide. Banks can get money from several sources: Through inter-bank borrowing and from raising capital. Capital can come from from selling assets, stock offerings, deposits, etc. The money the banks get from depositors is capital. In the United States, the Federal Reserve regulates the amount of capital that banks must maintain. If there was no requirement for capital then there would be zero demand for capital at an interest rate above the inter-bank offering rate. As capital requirements have risen, banks are allowed to make less loans given a certain amount of capital. That has caused an increased demand for capital from depositors. As described in this Federal Reserve ruling, effective January 1st, 2014 the Federal Reserve is again raising capital requirements. As you can see here money can be borrowed, in the United States, at .0825% (100 - 99.9175). Currently interest rates paid to borrowers are quite high compared to prevailing inter-bank rates. They could see more upward pressure given the fact that banks will be forced to maintain an increased amount of capital for a given amount of loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24207e8002e469fc9ae131448ac96ded", "text": "I've wondered the same thing. And, after reading the above replies, I think there is a simpler explanation. It goes like this. When the bank goes to make a loan they need capital to do it. So, they can get it from the federal reserve, another bank, or us. Well, if the federal reserve will loan it to them for lets say 0.05%, what do you think they are going to be willing to pay us? Id say maybe 0.04%. Anyway, I could be wrong, but this makes sense to me.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9000b94ce73103322b8f7a9335d6b9c8", "text": "but I can't help but feel that these low rates are somehow a gimmick to trick people into taking out loans Let me help you: it's not a feeling. That's exactly what it is. Since the economy is down, people don't want to jeopardize what they have, and keep the cash in their wallets. But, while keeping the money safe in the pocket, it makes the economy even worse. So in order to make people spend some money, the rates go down so that the cost of money is lower. It also means that the inflation will be on the rise, which is again a reason not to keep money uninvested. So yes, the rates are now very low, and the housing market is a buyers' market, so it does make sense to take out a loan at this time (provided of course that you can actually repay it over time, and don't take loans you can't handle). Of course, you shouldn't be taking loans just because the rates are low. But if you were already planning on purchasing a house - now would be a good time to go on with that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53a3c9a63c8da65415a683dcd909b747", "text": "Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e16b834629cbf3ea7dbfc65ce2a43ca4", "text": "\"In the United States, if someone refers to the \"\"interest rate\"\", especially if heard on news or talk radio in particular, they are almost always referring to the federal funds rate, a rate set forth and maintained by the United States Federal Reserve (the \"\"fed\"\" for short). If the fed opts to raise or lower this rate, it subsequently effects all interest rates, whether by being directly connected in a chain of loans or by market demand through the efficiency of financial markets in the case of bond auctions. The FOMC meets eight times each year to determine the target for the federal funds rate. The federal funds rate effects all interest rates because it is the originating rate of interest on all loans in the chain of loans. Because of this significance as a benchmark for all interest rates, it is the rate most commonly referred to as \"\"interest rate\"\" when used alone. That is why other rates are specified by what they actually are; e.g., mortgage rates; 10 year & 30 year (for 10 year treasury and 30 year treasury bond yields respectively); savings rate, auto rate, credit card rate, CD rate—all rates of interest effected by the originating loan that is the federal funds rate. This is true in the United States but will vary for other countries. In general though, it will almost always refer to the originating rate for all loans in a given country, institution, etc. Note that bonds have yields that are based on market demand that is, in turn, based on the federal funds rate. It is because of the efficiency of financial markets that the demand, and thus the yields, are correlated to the federal funds rate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2463d84961fd43c553e785776200866", "text": "Ultra-low rates can spur an unhealthy boon in M&A deals/Corporate takeovers as management (defensively) and raiders (offensively) lever up cheaply to acquire companies. This can be problematic down the line when takeovers/large investments (that were funded with cheap debt) dont pan out and interest rates rise, and with it the cost of servicing that debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b7f04d94c8e7840ef8cb467b3b6f302", "text": "\"When \"\"people say\"\", each person is referring to whatever he/she is looking at. Interest rates tend to move roughly the same, but often there is a bias regarding long vs. short term. In the US right now, short term interest rates are very low but there is a lot of chatter saying they will rise in the future. The differential between long term rates and short term rates is high compared to historical norms, suggesting that the market believes this chatter. You can also look at the differences in rates between different quality levels. If the economy is improving, the difference in rate for lower rated debt vs. higher rated debt decreases as people think the chance of businesses failing is decreasing. Right now, any interest rate you look at is well below long term historical averages, so asserting that interest rates are low is quite safe.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ff80c9cff66502d09bc5ce410e70ffe", "text": "\"If the banks are not giving you a loan, there is probably a good reason for it. Banks are lending, they are only making safe loans. And this is not a bad thing. Remember that everybody is pissed off at the banks because they made too many risky loans and inflated a bubble until it popped and needed to be bailed out. It's stupid to be pissed at the fact that they stopped making risky loans. But of course, everybody says \"\"but I'm not risky, the other guy is the risky one\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ff81d9f59ff081e30dc8aab9c2e1e17", "text": "There is a significant tie between housing prices and mortgage rates. As such, don't assume low mortgage rates mean you will be financially better off if you buy now, since housing prices are inversely correlated with mortgage rates. This isn't a huge correlation - it's R-squared is a bit under 20%, at a 1.5-2 year lag - but there is a significant connection there. Particularly in that 10%+ era (see chart at end of post for details) in 1979-1982, there was a dramatic drop in housing price growth that corresponded with high interest rates. There is a second major factor here, though, one that is likely much more important: why the interest rates are at 10%. Interest rates are largely set to follow the Federal Funds rate (the rate at which the Federal Reserve loans to banks). That rate is set higher for essentially one purpose: to combat inflation. Higher interest rates means less borrowing, slower economic growth, and most importantly, a slower increase in the money supply - all of which come together to prevent inflation. Those 10% (and higher!) rates you heard about? Those were in the 70's and early 80's. Anyone remember the Jimmy Carter years? Inflation in the period from 1979 to 1981 averaged over 10%. Inflation in the 70s from 1973 to 1982 averaged nearly 9% annually. That meant your dollar this year was worth only $0.90 next year - which means inevitably a higher cost of borrowing. In addition to simply keeping pace with inflation, the Fed also uses the rate as a carrot/stick to control US inflation. They weren't as good at that in the 70s - they misread economic indicators in the late 1970s significantly, lowering rates dramatically in 1975-1977 (from ~12% to ~5%). This led to the dramatic double-digit inflation of the 1979-1981 period, requiring them to raise rates to astronomic levels - nearly 20% at one point. Yeah, I hope nobody bought a house on a fixed-rate mortgage from 1979-1981. The Fed has gotten a lot more careful over the years - Alan Greenspan largely was responsible for the shift in policy which seems to have been quite effective from the mid 1980s to the present (though he's long gone from his spot on the Fed board). Despite significant economic changes in both directions, inflation has been kept largely under control since then, and since 1991 have been keeping pretty steady around 6% or less. The current rate (around 0%) is unlikely to stay around forever - that would lead to massive inflation, eventually - but it's reasonable to say that prolonged periods over 10% are unlikely in the medium term. Further, if inflation did spike (and with it, your interest rates), salaries tend to spike also. Not quite as fast as inflation - in fact, that's a major reason a small positive inflation around 2-3% is important, to allow for wages to grow more slowly for poorer performers - but still, at 10% inflation the average wage will climb at a fairly similar pace. Thus, you'd be able to buy more house - or, perhaps a better idea, save more money for a house that you can then buy a few years down the road when rates drop. Ultimately, the advice here is to not worry too much about interest rates. Buy a house when you're ready, and buy the house you're ready for. Interest rates may rise, but if so it's likely due to an increase in inflation and thus wage growth; and it would take a major shift in the economy for rates to rise to the 10-11% level. If that did happen, housing prices (or at least growth in prices) would likely drop significantly. Some further references:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e96efcfab2cdc6ccf5a9aaf632736584", "text": "It is my understanding that banks pay less than the going rate on savings accounts and require that the person who takes out a loan pay more than the going rate. That is how the bank gets its money. Usually the going rate is affected by the current inflation rate (but that has not been true for the last few weeks). So that means that, typically, the money you have in the bank is, gradually, losing purchasing power as the bank typically pays you less than the inflation rate. So if you want your money to keep pace with inflation (or do a bit better) then you should buy bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a81fcec8b06a16d323ca49071561d6e7", "text": "My first thought was that it must be due to inflation, which causes such differences in many cases since a creditor needs to make back more than the rate of inflation in order not to effectively lose money. But it seems that Paraguay currently has only a very modest rate of inflation, about 3%. Other possible reasons for different credit rates: The latter is most likely. It means that if debtors are generally poor and are often completely unable to pay back the loan, or if there is no effective way to force uncooperative debtors to pay (e.g. when there are weak laws or overworked courts), then creditors will lose a lot of money to defaults and have to raise rates to compensate for this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe92cdc5cbfbffbfa49e82267ecb5ca", "text": "Generally a credit union will tend to have lower rates, since they are owned by the members, and not having to make a profit for some rich bankers or a bunch of shareholders. OTOH their funds are often more limited than a bank, and they may be pickier about who they loan to. still that's just 'generally', it always pays to shop around", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980d020cae85bd5eb02613892ba3ba13", "text": "There is really much simpler explanation for the interest rate differences in different countries. It is the interest rate arbitrage. It is a very well explored economic concept, so you can look it up on the Internet, in case you want to know more. 1) Interest rates for the same currency in different countries Basically, as one smart person here pointed out, there is only one price of money in free market economy. It happens, because investors can move their money unrestrictedly anywhere in the World to capitalize on the local interest rates advantage. For instance, if I can take a loan in the USA at 3-4% annual interest and receive 5-6% annual income on my dollar deposit in Russia, I would take a loan in the US and open a deposit in Russia to enjoy a risk free interest rate differential income of 2% (5-6% - 3-4% ~ 2%). So, would any reasonable person. However, in real World very few banks in Russia or anywhere would pay you an an interest rate higher than it can borrow money at. It'd probably lose money if it'd do so. Anyways, the difference between the risk free rate and interest rate on the dollar deposit can be attributed to the risk premium of this particular bank. The higher expected return, the greater risk premium. If there is a positive difference in the interest rates on the dollar deposits in different countries, it will almost entirely accounted for the risk premium. It is generally much riskier to keep money in, say Russian bank, than American. That's why investors want greater return on their dollar deposits in Russian banks than in American. Of course, if you'd want to park your USD in Russian bank you'd also have to consider transaction costs. So, as you may have already guessed, there is no free lunch. 2) Interest rates in different currencies for different countries If we are talking about the interest rates in different sovereign currencies, it is a somewhat similar concept, only there is more risk if you keep money in local currency (risk premium is much higher). Probably, the biggest component of this risk is inflation (that is only attributed to the prices in local currency). For that reason, current interest rates on deposits in Russian Rubles are at 10-12%, but only 1-3% in the US Dollars. An economic concept that discusses this phenomenon in great detail is Interest Rate Parity. Hope this was helpful. P.S. It doesn't look quite realistic that you can get an 8% annual income for USD deposit in Russia with the interest rates in the U.S. being at 1-2%. At present moment, a 30-year mortgage annual interest rate in the US is at ~2-3% and an annual interest rates for dollar deposits in Sberbank (one of the safest Russian banks = very little risk premium) is at 1-3%. So, arbitrage is impossible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "65ee8fe1e4d415e65ad72de915f56166", "text": "I would also like to have this discussed, alongside the issue that the US has gone into some type of [recession](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/US_Treasuries_to_Federal_Funds_Rate.png) roughly every ten year. So with the prospect of a possible recession with a close to 0% cash rate looming, what tools will the FED employ to keep Banks borrowing while maintaining inflation rates?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdfd994b5992e50efdcfb6a00c3901a5", "text": "The benefit, as other answers have mentioned, is higher interest rates than are available compared to other comparable options. My bank keeps spamming me with offers for a sub 1% APR savings account that only requires a $10,000 balance, for example. While CDs and similar safe investments don't seem like they offer much value now (or in the recent past), that's because they strongly correlate to the federal funds rate, which is near historic lows. See the graph of CD rates and the federal funds rate, here. You may have felt differently in July of 1984, when you could get a 5 year CD with an APR above 12%. As you can see in this graph of historical CD yields, it hasn't always been the case that CDs offered such small returns. That being said, CDs are safe investments, being FDIC insured (up to the FDIC insurance limits), so you're not going to get great rates from one, because there's basically no risk in this particular type of investment. If you want better rates, you get those by investing in riskier instruments that have the possibility of losing value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd585fa26eeb5e188fb1aad4503d3bda", "text": "Since 1971, mortgage interest rates have never been more than .25% below current rates (3.6%). Even restricting just to the last four years, rates have been as much as .89% higher. Overall, we're much closer to the record low interest rate than any type of high. We're currently at a three-year low. Yes, we should expect interest rates to go up. Eventually. Maybe when that happens, bonds will fall. It hasn't happened yet though. In fact, there remain significant worries that the Fed has been overly aggressive in raising rates (as it was around 2008). The Brexit side effects seem to be leaning towards an easing in monetary policy rather than a tightening.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f27db9be9f670568435ea70473cb7ef7", "text": "Well, people have been saying interest rates have to go up for years now and have been wrong so far. Also there is an opportunity cost in waiting to buy - if another five years passes with nothing happen, you earn 0% on checking accounts, but at least earn 1.65% per year or so on your 10y bond.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7075120166173dc5bbeda3aa5608f297	Most Efficient Way to Transfer Money from Israel to the USA?	[ { "docid": "c3afb4be6ac9ba07245eba110446a4a3", "text": "Check with stock brokers. Some of them will offer ILS->USD conversion at a very beneficial rate (very close to the official), without any commission, and flat-priced wire transfers. For large amounts this is perfect. I know for a fact that Gaon Trade used to do that ($15 for a wire transfer of any amount), but they are now defunct... Check with Meitav (their successor) and others if they still do these things. If you're talking about relatively small amounts (up to several thousands $$$) - you may be better off withdrawing cash or using your credit card in the US. For mid range (up to $50K give or take, depending on your shopping and bargaining skills) banks may be cheaper. A quick note about what jamesqf has mentioned in his answer... You probably don't want to tell your banker that you're moving to the US. Some people reported banks freezing their accounts and demanding US tax info to unfreeze, something that you're not required to provide according to the Israeli law. So just don't tell them. In the US you'll need to report your Israeli bank/trading/pension/educational/savings/insurance accounts on FBAR and FATCA forms when you're doing your taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ce783c21c9bf1f0c28b45dbca5c4a8d", "text": "How much are we talking about here? My own experience (Switzerland->US, under $10K) was that the easiest way was just $100 bills. Alternatively, I just left a bunch in the Swiss bank, and used my ATM card to make withdrawals when needed. That worked for several years (I was doing contract work remotely for the Swiss employer, who paid into that account), until the bank had issues with the IRS (unrelated to me!) and couriered me a check for the balance.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef", "text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd8b8328d4736d1696c3855cafb9f340", "text": "My preferred method of doing this is to get a bank draft from the US in Euros and then pay it into the French bank (my countries are Canada and UK, but the principle is the same). The cost of the bank draft is about $8, so very little more than the ATM method. If you use bigger amounts it can be less overall cost. The disadvantage is that a bank draft takes a week or so to write and a few days to clear. So you would have to plan ahead. I would keep enough money in the French account for one visit, and top it up with a new bank draft every visit or two.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a078d5ad94146882425b26d8951d861", "text": "I have recently started using Transferwise to transfer money between the U.K. and The Netherlands. Transferwise has lower fees than other companies. They use a pseudo-peer-to-peer money transfer system. When person A transfers £ to €, and person B transfers € to £, they effectively cancel these two agains teach other, which significantly lowers exchange fees for both A and B. I am not affiliated with Transferwise other than as a customer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5957d17f3237d596fda562a4340cfe5c", "text": "I don't know how fast are wire transfers between bank accounts in the US, but here in Europe we can have them in under an hour usually for an extra fee (during bank working hours) - so you could take a laptop with Internet connection to the transaction, make a wire transfer and wait that hour drinking coffee for the transfer to arrive before handing the keys and papers and the buyer driving away.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0878af8aa13a09e310192c9020de479d", "text": "For those who are interested, I am answering my own question: We used Postbank and transferred 6000 Euro, we chose to Transfer in US$, and selected Shared Fees. There were three fees in total: All in all, I paid ~37$; this is about half of what I expected; and I got a perfect exchange rate. Postbank might have its downsides, but it seems they are still a good deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394e7f9c315c8a45d52d4024cb97755e", "text": "Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour. Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end. Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved. Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f678d63d1dfbbadafbbe7c07f7fca21", "text": "You could use a money transfer service like Western Union or the equivalent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc31334f740991c0099db5e9dec0d62d", "text": "TD now has crossborder banking so you can set up a no-fee no-interest USD account with Tdbank.com and transfer money and pay bills in the US. You just need a minimum balance of $100. I might try Paypal before going that route though.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95027669f9c35e4703223ae15a60e31e", "text": "A quick search shows that https://www.westernunion.com/de/en/send-money/start.html says they will transfer €5,000 for a cost of €2.90. Assuming you can do a transfer every week, that would be six weeks at a cost of €17.40. €17.40 is slightly less than €1,500.00. I'm sure there are more ways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "144cce3a1c93590519217a7e460232ff", "text": "There are a few options that I know of, but pretty much every one of them will cost more than you want to pay in fees, probably. You should be able to write a check/cheque to yourself. You might check with your US bank branch to see how much of a limit they'd have. You can also use a Canadian ATM card at a US ATM. The final option would be to use a Canadian credit card for all of your purchases in the US, and then pay the bill from the Canadian bank account. I don't recommend the last option because if you're not careful to pay off the bill every month, you're running up debt. Also, it's hard to pay some kinds of expenses by credit card, so you'd want a way to have cash available. Another option would be to use a service like Paypal or Hyperwallet to send yourself the money. Again, you'd be paying fees, but these might be cheaper than what the bank would charge. There may be other options, but these are the ones I'm aware of. Whatever you choose, look carefully at what the fees would be, and how long you'd have to wait to get the money. If you can plan ahead a bit, and take larger chunks of money at a time, that should help keep the fees down a bit. I believe there's also a point where you start having to report these transfers to the US government. The number $10,000 stick in my head, but they may have changed that recently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "41ee3561cef74975b242ec5e0bf15f49", "text": "Online money transfer facility from Axis Remit is a quick and easy way to transfer money from USA to India. AxisRemit is Axis Bank's flagship inward remittance service enables you to transfer money to your beneficiaries through the most efficient channels like online money transfer, exchange houses and money transfer operators.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7957baed2fcd5a97163f83bb26a8c990", "text": "It really depends on the amount of money - I currently have to pay my mortgage in the UK from the US until my house there is sold and my wife sends money from her (US) Paypal account to my UK Paypal account. As personal payments these don't attract the sort of fees you see for ebay payments et al. Compared to the fee-o-rama that a wire transfer turns into (I tried once from BofA to HSBC UK), it is noticeably cheaper for the amount of money we're sending. That said, a lot of the currency transfer services have support for monthly payments and you might get a decent exchange rate and fewer (or no) fees that way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "384e8f4f9cfd57bcd1d185a8fbc1a6dc", "text": "Wire transfers normally run through either the Fedwire system or the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The process generally works like this: You approach a bank or other financial institution and ask to transfer money. You give the bank a certain code, either an international bank account number or one of several other standards, which informs the bank where to send the money. The bank sends a message through a system like Fedwire to the receiving bank, along with settlement instructions. This is where the process can get a bit tricky. For the wire transfer to work, the banks must have reciprocal accounts with each other, or the sending bank must send the money to a bank that does have such an account with the receiver. If the sending bank sends the money to a third-party bank, the transaction is settled between them, and the money is then sent to the receiving bank from the third-party bank. This last transaction may be a wire transfer, ACH transfer, etc. The Federal Reserve fits into this because many banks hold accounts for this purpose with the Federal Reserve. This allows them to use the Fed as the third-party bank referred to above. Interestingly enough, this is one of the significant ways in which the Fed makes a profit, because it, along with every other bank and routing agent in the process, collects a miniscule fee on this process. You'll often find sources that state that Fedwire is only for transferring large transactions; while this is technically correct, it's important to understand that financial institutions don't settle every wire transfer or payment immediately. Although the orders are put in immediately, the financial institutions settle their transactions in bulk at the end of the business day, and even then they normally only settle the difference. So, if Chase owes Bank of America $1M, and Bank of America owes Chase $750K, they don't send these as two transactions; Chase simply credits BAC $250K. You didn't specifically ask about ACH transfers, which as littleadv pointed out, are different from wire transfers, but since ACH transfers can often form a part of the whole process, I'll explain that process too. ACH is a payment processing system that works through the Federal Reserve system, among others. The Federal Reserve (through the Fedline and FedACH systems) is by far the largest payment processor. The physical cash itself isn't transferred; in simple terms, the money is transferred through the ACH system between the accounts each bank maintains at the Federal Reserve. Here is a simple example of how the process works (I'm summarizing the example from Wikipedia). Let's say that Bob has an account with Chase and wants to get his paycheck from his employer, Stack Exchange, directly deposited into this account. Assume that Stack Exchange uses Bank of America as their bank. Bob, the receiver, fills out a direct deposit authorization form and gives it to his employer, called the originator. Once the originator has the authorization, they create an entry with an Originating Depository Financial Institution, which acts as a middleman between a payment processor (like the Federal Reserve) and the originator. The ODFI ensures that the transaction complies with the relevant regulations. In this example, Bank of America is the ODFI. Bank of America (the ODFI) converts the transaction request into an ACH entry and submits it, through an ACH operator, to the Receiving Depository Financial Institution (RDFI), which in this case is Chase bank. Chase credits (deposits) the paycheck in Bob's account. The Federal Reserve fits into all of this in several ways. Through systems like Fedline and FedACH, the Fed acts as an ACH operator, and the banks themselves also maintain accounts at the Federal Reserve, so it's the institution that actually performs the settling of accounts between banks.", "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": "1b17da46197e9cd892e258fc16b611ba", "text": "I am also confused by what he says. The DJIA has not been at 900 for decades. However a $36 dividend is 4% per unit if you get $9 per unit per quarter. 2/3 of 4% is 6%,so that is inside his 7.5% to 5.5%. How much you have in dividend paying stocks vs. Bonds most often is a function of your age. For example, I have heard the advice of subtracting your age in years from 110 and that would be the percent you hold in dividend paying stocks. At age 30 you would have 80% in stocks. At age 60 you would be 50% in stocks. There are retirement funds that do this for you. But the 'bottom line' all depends on your risk tolerance. I have a large tolerance for risk. So even though I am currently retired I only have 10% of my money in a 'safe' investment (ticker=PGF). It pays 5.5% per year. The rest is in a leveraged junk bond fund (PHK) that pays 15.5% per year.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
effa6c9d644c31e0fcfeefc239629216	Why IV and stock price are inversely related	[ { "docid": "10fc3cef181d456bb37c2c3051b40413", "text": "\"people are willing to pay higher premiums for options when stocks go down. Obviously the time value and intrinsic value and interests rates of the option doesn't change because of this so the miscalculation remainder is priced into the implied volatility part of the formula. Basically, anything that suggests the stock price will get volatile (sharp moves in either direction) will increase the implied volatility of the option. For instance, around earnings reports, the IV in both calls and puts in the nearest expiration dates are very high. When stocks go down sharply, the volatility is high because some people are buying puts for protection and others are buying calls because they think there will be a rebound move in the other direction. People (the \"\"sleep-at-night\"\" investors, not the derivatives traders ;) ) tend to be calm when stocks are going up, and fearful when they are going down. The psychology is important to understand and observe and profit from, not to quantitatively prove. The first paragraph should be your qualitative answer\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3d9a087db7ac36a435de1783db63916d", "text": "\"What you are seeking is termed \"\"Alpha\"\", the mispricing in the market. Specifically, Alpha is the price error when compared to the market return and beta of the stock. Modern portfolio theory suggests that a portfolio with good Alpha will maximize profits for a given risk tolerance. The efficient market hypotheses suggests that Alpha is always zero. The EMH also suggests that taxes, human effort and information propagation delays don't exist (i.e. it is wrong). For someone who is right, the best specific answer to your question is presented Ben Graham's book \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" (starting on page 280). And even still, that book is better summarized by Warren Buffet (see Berkshire Hathaway Letters to Shareholders). In a great disservice to the geniuses above it can be summarized much further: closely follow the company to estimate its true earnings potential... and ignore the prices the market is quoting. ADDENDUM: And when you have earnings potential, calculate value with: NPV = sum(each income piece/(1+cost of capital)^time) Update: See http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/24/warren-buffett-berkshire-letter/ \"\"When Charlie Munger and I buy stocks...\"\" for these same ideas right from the horse's mouth\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87111ad5079b801b29090cb55023ea74", "text": "\"It reminds me of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, except that just states in its weakest form that the current market price accounts for all information embedded in previous market prices. In other words, people buying today at 42 know it was selling for 40 yesterday, and the patterns and such. To say that stock is memoryless strikes me as not quite right -- to the extent that stocks are valued based on earnings, much of what we infer about future earnings relies on past and present earnings. One obvious counterexample to this \"\"memoryless\"\" claim is bankruptcy. If a stock files bankruptcy, and there isn't enough money to pay senior debt, your shares are worth 0 in perpetuity.\"", "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": "458035a733cd81b90a29dc552cdd3bfb", "text": "\"The most fundamental answer is that when you short a stock (or an ETF), you short a specific number of shares on a specific day, and you probably don't adjust this much as the price wobbles goes up and down. But an inverse fund is not tied to a specific start date, like your own transaction is. It adjusts on an ongoing basis to maintain its full specified leverage at all times. If the underlying index goes up, it has to effectively \"\"buy in\"\" because its collateral is no longer sufficient to support its open position. On the other hand, if the underlying index goes down, that frees up collateral which is used to effectively short-sell more of the underlying. So by design it will buy high and sell low, and so any volatility will pump money out of the fund. I say \"\"effectively\"\" because inverse funds use derivatives and contracts, rather than actually shorting the underlying security. Which brings up the less fundamental issue. These derivatives and contracts are relatively opaque; the counter-parties are in it for their own benefit, not yours; and the people who run the fund get their expenses regardless of how you do, and they are hard for you to monitor. This is a hazardous combination.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5680b160ef451d1256d0d99b6011ba1a", "text": "Look at the how the income statement is built. The stock price is nowhere on it. The net income is based on the revenue (money coming in) and expenses (money going out). Most companies do not issue stock all that often. The price you see quoted is third parties selling the stock to each other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3acf275d77964f6b617beee49dcc0d64", "text": "There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dba0da4bed1302a7eeab9c8127906e2", "text": "\"Yes, the price of a stock is what investors think the value of a stock is, which is not tied to profits or dividends by any rigid formula. But to say that therefore the price could be high even though the company is doing very poorly is hypothetically true, but unlikely in practice. Consider any other product. There is no fixed formula for the value of a used car, either. If everyone agreed that a rusting, 20-year old car that doesn't run is worth $100,000, then that's what it would sell for. But that's a pretty big \"\"if\"\" at the beginning of that sentence. If the car had been used in some hit TV show 20 years ago, or if it was owned by a celebrity, or some such special case, maybe a rusting old car really would sell for $100,000. Likewise, a stock might have a price higher than what one would predict from its dividends if some rich person wanted to buy that company because the brand name brings back nostalgic memories from his youth and so he drives the price up, etc. But the normal case is that, in the long term, the price of a stock tends to settle on a value proportional to the dividends that it pays. Or rather, and this is a big caveat, the dividends that investors expect it to pay in the future. And then adjusted for all sorts of other factors and special situations, like the value of the company if it was to be liquidated, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91b417b497de26427f7464a4309b0339", "text": "As said previously, most of the time volume does not affect stock prices, except with penny stocks. These stocks typically have a small volume in the 3 or 4 figure range and because of this they typically experience very sharp rises and drops in stock prices, contrasting normal stocks that go up and down constantly every minute. Volume is not one thing you should be looking at when analyzing a stock in most cases, since it is simply the number of people of trades made in a day. That has no effect on the value of the company, whereas looking at P/E ratios, dividend growth, etc all can be analyzed to see if a company is growing and is doing well in its field. If I buy an iPhone, it doesn't matter if 100 other people or 100,000 other people have bought it as well, since they won't really affect my experience with the product. Whereas the type of iPhone I buy will.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1410bf64e236bfa3179df8388872d022", "text": "Most of stock trading occurs on what is called a secondary market. For example, Microsoft is traded on NASDAQ, which is a stock exchange. An analogy that can be made is that of selling a used car. When you sell a used car to a third person, the maker of your car is unaffected by this transaction and the same goes for stock trading. Still within the same analogy, when the car is first sold, money goes directly to the maker (actually more complicated than that but good enough for our purposes). In the case of stock trading, this is called an Initial Public Offering (IPO) / Seasoned Public Offering (SPO), for most purposes. What this means is that a drop of value on a secondary market does not directly affect earning potential. Let me add some nuance to this. Say this drop from 20$ to 10$ is permanent and this company needs to finance itself through equity (stock) in the future. It is likely that it would not be able to obtain as much financing in this matter and would either 1) have to rely more on debt and raise its cost of capital or 2) obtain less financing overall. This could potentially affect earnings through less cash available from financing. One last note: in any case, financing does not affect earnings except through cost of capital (i.e. interest paid) because it is neither revenue nor expense. Financing obtained from debt increases assets (cash) and liabilities (debt) and financing obtained from stock issuance increases assets (cash) and shareholder equity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57ae1dabaed20e2a1c7a8d770aa3941a", "text": "\"I probably don't understand something. I think you are correct about that. :) The main way money enters the stock market is through investors investing and taking money out. Money doesn't exactly \"\"enter\"\" the stock market. Shares of stock are bought and sold by investors to investors. The market is just a mechanism for a buyer and seller to find each other. For the purposes of this question, we will only consider non-dividend stocks. Okay. When you buy stock, it is claimed that you own a small portion of the company. This statement has no backing, as you cannot exchange your stock for the company's assets. For example, if I bought $10 of Apple Stock early on, but it later went up to $399, I can't go to Apple and say \"\"I own $399 of you, here you go it back, give me an iPhone.\"\" The only way to redeem this is to sell the stock to another investor (like a Ponzi Scheme.) It is true that when you own stock, you own a small portion of the company. No, you can't just destroy your portion of the company; that wouldn't be fair to the other investors. But you can very easily sell your portion to another investor. The stock market facilitates that sale, making it very easy to either sell your shares or buy more shares. It's not a Ponzi scheme. The only reason your hypothetical share is said to be \"\"worth\"\" $399 is that there is a buyer that wants to buy it at $399. But there is a real company behind the stock, and it is making real money. There are several existing questions that discuss what gives a stock value besides a dividend: The stock market goes up only when more people invest in it. Although the stock market keeps tabs on Businesses, the profits of Businesses do not actually flow into the Stock Market. In particular, if no one puts money in the stock market, it doesn't matter how good the businesses do. The value of a stock is simply what a buyer is willing to pay for it. You are correct that there is not always a correlation between the price of a stock and how well the company is doing. But let's look at another hypothetical scenario. Let's say that I started and run a publicly-held company that sells widgets. The company is doing very well; I'm selling lots of widgets. In fact, the company is making incredible amounts of money. However, the stock price is not going up as fast as our revenues. This could be due to a number of reasons: investors might not be aware of our success, or investors might not think our success is sustainable. I, as the founder, own lots of shares myself, and if I want a return on my investment, I can do a couple of things with the large revenues of the company: I can either continue to reinvest revenue in the company, growing the company even more (in the hopes that investors will start to notice and the stock price will rise), or I can start paying a dividend. Either way, all the current stock holders benefit from the success of the company.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e65bd064fbdce5bd4a59cc1b63ec68e", "text": "From every article I've encountered, the chicken and egg aspect suggests that IV is produced by looking at options pricing, and calculating the IV from that. The implication is that whatever is known at that time is included in the price. And that when you see a particular option trade an unusual number of contracts at a given price, the implication is that someone thinks they know something that's not already priced in, i.e. that the current price is not accurate, they can profit on the future event.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08731cc1aa3d6b5299b0f83c6ebf6b87", "text": "I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO. They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO. In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding. This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d5c8d1757f4113f3d00149c7023f95", "text": "Companies do both quite often. They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders. Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock). To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3fb7e228563796fa46d65b6918fe1cd1", "text": "I have heard that people say the greater earning means greater intrinsic value of the company. Then, the stock price is largely based on the intrinsic value. So increasing intrinsic value due to increasing earning will lead to increasing stock price. Does this make sense ? Yes though it may be worth dissecting portions here. As a company generates earnings, it has various choices for what it can do with that money. It can distribute some to shareholders in the form of dividends or re-invest to generate more earnings. What you're discussing in the first part is those earnings that could be used to increase the perceived value of the company. However, there can be more than a few interpretations of how to compute a company's intrinsic value and this is how one can have opinions ranging from companies being overvalued to undervalued overall. Of Mines, Forests, and Impatience would be an article giving examples that make things a bit more complex. Consider how would you evaluate a mine, a forest or a farm where each gives a different structure to the cash flow? This could be useful in running the numbers here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a6ab2ad605b9d03ed7f3dd7d905f179", "text": "In my mind its not the same. If growth is stock value then this is incorrect because of compound interest in stock price. $100 stock price after one year would be $105 and a dividend would be $2 Next year the stock would be $110.20 (Compound Interest) and would the Dividend really go up in lock step with the stock price? Well probably not, but if it did then maybe you could call it the same. Even if the dollars are the same the growth rate is more variable than the dividends so its valuable to segregate the two. I am open to criticism, my answer is based on my personal experience and would love to hear contrary positions on this.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
96fd7d87766401770bce4602dfa98f65	How does the Pension system work in Poland?	[ { "docid": "119d3174cd9bd0cf75e16baa4c33db53", "text": "\"Pretty simple actually. This is a state-run defined benefit plan, where the benefit is calculated based on the length of the employment and the contributed amounts. This is what in the US is known as the Social Security. This is a defined contribution plan, where the employee can chose the level of risk based on certain pre-defined investment guidelines (more conservative or more aggressive). In Poland, it appears that there's a certain amount of the state-mandated SS tax is transferred to these plans. Nothing in the US is like that, but you can see it as a mandatory IRA with a preset limited choice of mutual funds to invest into, as an analogy. The recent change was to reduce the portion of the madatory contribution that is diverted to this plan from 7+% to 2.3% (on account of expanding the contribution to (1)). Probably the recent crashes of the stock markets that affected these accounts lead to this decision. This is voluntary defined contribution plan, similar to the US 401Ks. This division is actually pretty common, not unique to Poland. I'd say its the \"\"standard\"\" pension scheme, as opposed to what we're used to in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2de3a1a064414253517f86d19d73ca32", "text": "littleadv's answer gives a concise summary of the system as it stands now, but much more changed than just the portion of the mandatory contribution that was diverted to the private plan. In broad terms, the balances of your accounts and your future benefit won't change. It's only the source of these benefits that's changing. The Bloomberg article describes the changes this way: The state will take over the amount of bonds that pension funds held as of end of Sept. 3 and turn them into pension liabilities in the state-run social security system... The state will assume control of 51.5 percent of pension-fund assets, including bonds guaranteed by the government and “other non-stock assets” After the change, Polish workers that held bonds in the private portion of their retirement portfolios will instead have more payments from the state-run pension system. The balances of your retirement portfolio and your future benefits shouldn't change, but the reality may depend on how the state pension system is managed and any future changes the government implements. The effect this change will have on future benefits isn't clear, because the change may simply delay the problem of high levels of outstanding sovereign debt, not solve it. The government stated that because increasing numbers of workers invested their money in private pension funds, less money went into the government's fund, which forced them to issue sovereign debt in order to cover the shortfall in their current pension liabilities. The government's recent cancellation of government bonds in the hands of private pensions will decrease their overall outstanding debt, but in exchange, the government is increasing its future pension liabilities. Years down the road, the government may find that they need to issue more sovereign debt to cover the increased pension liabilities they're taking on today. In other words, they may find themselves back in the same situation years down the road, and it's difficult to predict what changes they might make at that time.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5d1d735161bf4af7869e074c981f3532", "text": "PKO Bank polski has a feature of free incoming,outgoing transfer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d9d532027b382ad0beeaa952ff5dff3", "text": "\"By \"\"basic public pension\"\" I assume you mean Social Security, which is pretty much the only quasi-universal pension-like thing in the USA. If she has any other sort of pension (e.g., from a job) you'd need to get more specific info about that. As for Social Security, as described here: While you are working, your earnings will reduce your benefit amount only until you reach your full retirement age. According to the calculator on that site, if she is 65 now, her full retirement age would be 66, so if she retires after that age her SS benefit won't be reduced due to extra income. As described here, if she has considerable income apart from SS, she may have to pay taxes on her SS income. This would not reduce her income, but means the benefit of her extra blog income would be reduced. This page describes how to calculate your \"\"provisional income\"\" to determine whether SS benefits will be taxed. According to that page: If your provisional income is less than $25,000 for single or head-of-household returns, or $32,000 for joint returns, then your Social Security benefits will not be taxed. Based on the numbers you gave, this suggests she would not incur an SS tax. However, she should probably take a look at the Social Security retirement estimator and other tools on that site, if she hasn't already done so, to get a sense of what sort of income SS will be providing her. I'd suggest that she talk to a retirement planner and/or CPA to get a handle on what her finances would be like. At the least, she should find someone knowledgeable about Social Security policies and tax issues in the USA. As you say, you are unfamiliar with the way these matters work in the USA, so your ability to help her make financial decisions is limited.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9936c8e9b262fc02a90797997678479a", "text": "\"Such economical system is the corporatism (well, a fascist poorly designed version). It is basically a system between free-market and communism, but in practice it is usually located on the far right, beyond conservative capitalism. - In corporatism, the state is seen like \"\"an organic body\"\" and the different social classes of citizens and state organizations, as the organs of such body. It is an planned economy but not egalitarian nor distributional (unlike socialism and communism), also inspired by Marxism. - In theory this system should serve to create an equitable and just society, such as socialism and communism, but also libertarian. And yet it has never been used as originally intended. This variant that has been applied is called \"\"fascist corporatism\"\". In theory there are many more models that could work, and some aren't authoritarian, but none has been applied. - As a curiosity, the book \"\"beyond the brave new world\"\" shows an authoritarian corporatist system taken to the extreme.\"", "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": "" }, { "docid": "ef238d44f6ade1b18699e8e1f245592d", "text": "In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "153fe4555f0546ef8a2914f4e7e0a871", "text": "There should be. The CPPIB (Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board) is one of the most well-funded pension plans in the world. Your question is also their #1 FAQ. Unlike many other countries, the measures were taken long ago, in that the fund was set up to be sustaining from investments and contributions; rather than just contributions. That said, the amount that CPP pays is not very much. The maximum benefit is about $11,000 per year, and not many people I know can live on that little. So you really should be trying to do something to augment that, if you are able.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "961b808e8f5aff1ccc271dcee4ea0080", "text": "This is basically a math problem. It depends on the pension benefits, the lump sum, and the chance that the company doesn't honor its pension plan. If you're willing to share the first 2 and the company name, it's possible to roughly figure out the odds of the third if your company has bonds or CDS. Maybe some bored analyst would do it for you here, or you could probably hire a financial advisor for an hour or 2 to figure it out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9bf147598690981a54ab283a8e1701a", "text": "Massively over-promising pensions are a problem in numerous states. California has done this so catastrophically that they could easily be seen as a qualitatively different than others (not just a bit worse but so systemically damaging that it is a different type of problem than most states face).", "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": "3689c791a22eed6b23bf1e2d40be343a", "text": "This is hyperbole that makes assumptions about engineering details that are easily addressed: Use a system analogous to marginal tax rates to solve this problem. Have 0-tax cutoff values a few times larger than expected pension/retirement fund savings values for individuals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e60bd04c2b5a61f2da564a518364ddc5", "text": "That's not how pension funds work. Individuals don't have their own account. They have a promise for a guaranteed amount of income. The money gets managed all together in one giant pool by professional investors. And these are the investors that the article is talking about. They're not a bunch of billionaires refusing to invest idle cash. They're often bureaucrats in charge of sovereign wealth funds that are desperately trying to earn enough interest to meet their obligations. Taxing them more isn't going to help anything.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "057595d71fcc3a46333f370d3b3bddcf", "text": "There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5b20e52a87063de073192df82373049", "text": "Public sector and private industry retirement plans, taxation and estate planning would be the most substantial differences between the two countries. The concepts for accumulating wealth are the same, and if you are doing anything particularly lucrative with an above average amount of risk, the aforementioned differences are not very relevant, for a twenty something.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6931b28ed497d53fd8dcf1995532c920", "text": "\"Also within Germany the tax offices usually determine which tax office is responsible for you by asking where you were more than 180 days of the year (if e.g. you have a second flat where you work). That's a default value, though: in my experience you can ask to be handled by another tax office. E.g. I hand my tax declaration to my \"\"home\"\" tax office (where also my freelancing adress is), even though my day-job is 300 km away. So if you work mostly from Poland and just visit the German customer a few times, you are fine anyways. Difficulties start if you move to Germany to do the work at your customer's place. I'm going to assume that this is the situation as otherwise I don't think the question would have come up. Close by the link you provided is a kind of FAQ on this EU regulation About the question of permanent vs. temporary they say: The temporary nature of the service is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Here's my German-Italian experience with this. Background: I had a work contract plus contracts for services and I moved for a while to Italy. Taxes and social insurance on the Italian contracts had to be paid to Italy. Including tax on the contract for services. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. By the way: The temporary time frame for Italy seemed to be 3 months, then I had to provide an Italian residence etc. and was registered in the Italian health care etc. system. Due to the German-Italian tax treaty, there is no double taxation. Same for Poland: this is part of EU contracts. Besides that, the German tax office nevertheless decided that my \"\"primary center of life\"\" stayed in Germany. So everything but the stuff related to the Italian contracts (which would probably have counted as normal work contracts in Germany, though they is no exact equivalent to those contract types) was handled by the German tax office. I think this is the relevant part for your question (or: argumentation with the German tax office) of temporary vs. permanent residence. Here are some points they asked: There is one point you absolutely need to know about the German social insurance law: Scheinselbständigkeit (pretended self-employment). Scheinselbständigkeit means contracts that claim to be service contracts with a self-employed provider who is doing the work in a way that is typical for employees. This law closes a loophole so employer + employee cannot avoid paying income tax and social insurance fees (pension contributions and unemployment insurance on both sides - health insurance would have to be paid in full by the self-employed instead of partially by the employer. Employer also avoids accident insurance, and several regulations from labour law are avoided as well). Legally, this is a form of black labour which means that the employer commits a criminal offense and is liable basically for all those fees. There is a list of criteria that count towards Scheinselbständigkeit. Particularly relevant for you could be\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef15667412971eea6b43a973276ba24b", "text": "In the US, pension benefits promised by employers are tightly regulated by a law called ERISA. One of the requirements is that money be deposited in a trust that is out of the reach of the employer and the employer's creditors, so even if the employer falls on hard times or goes bankrupt, the money to pay the pensions is still there. In addition, the benefits are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (usually called the PBGC). Relative to most investments, pensions are a safe bet.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7a10b138379e1fa0cdac6c47100bac9e	How to manage $50k in Savings?	[ { "docid": "41b6f7f8119d1318ecf780bd75d8542a", "text": "In today's market being paid 1% for risk and free access money is pretty darn good. If 50k is what you feel comfortable with an emergency fund, then you are doing a fine enough job. To me that is a lot to keep in an emergency fund, however several factors play into this: We both drive older cars, so I also keep enough money around to replace one of them. Considering all that I keep a specific amount in savings that for me earns .89%. Some of that is kept in our checking accounts which earns nothing. You have to go through some analysis of your own situation and keep that amount where it is. If that amount is less than 50K, you have some money to play with. Here are some options:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "5b7c6c045d2c03f178cd96160cd32d98", "text": "For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "592ad3963c42c459197267cc2ced76b4", "text": "I keep several savings accounts. I use an online-only bank that makes it very easy to open a new account in about 2 minutes. I keep the following accounts: Emergency Fund with 2 months of expenses. I pretend this money doesn't even exist. But if something happened that I needed money right away, I can get it. 6 6-month term CDs, with one maturing every month, each with 1 month's worth of expenses. This way, every month, I'll have a CD that matures with the money I would need that month if I lose my job or some other emergency that prevents me from working. You won't make as much interest on the 6-month term, but you'll have cash every month if you need it. Goal-specific accounts: I keep an account that I make a 'car payment' into every month so I'll have a down-payment saved when I'm ready to buy a car, and I'm used to making a payment, so it's not an additional expense if I need a loan. I also keep a vacation account so when it's time to take the family to Disneyland, I know how much I can budget for the trip. General savings: The 'everything else' account. When I just NEED to buy a new LCD TV on Black Friday, that's where I go without touching my emergency funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f9d9db538f7513ed349e2af5fcd7286", "text": "First, of course, I agree with the comments about paying down debt. Then reserve some of those savings as an emergency fund. After that, the default answer is to invest in an index fund as Mr Belford suggested, such as Vanguard's total stock market index fund, and leave it there forever. Even when the market tanks -- especially don't sell it when the market tanks! I might leave some cash in reserve so I can buy when the market corrects/tanks and stocks go on sale, but I'm paranoid that way. (Pick 5 random people and you'll hear 6 contradictory opinions on where the market will move soon.) I personally would just park it in the index fund. You just graduated; you have so many things you could spend your time on (building career, socializing, learning kickboxing and sailing and rock climbing and woodworking and intramural soccer and.....), and landlording has the potential to become a time sink. On the other hand, if you're really into landlording, why not. Just be aware it's a lot more complex than pay $50k down and collect $500 in easy profit each month. There's a lot of learning to do before jumping in.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fc79b65310eb6cba590a08089bf4016", "text": "Try the Envelope Budgeting System. It is a pretty good system for managing your discretionary outflows. Also, be sure to pay yourself first. That means treat savings like an expense (mortgage, utilities, etc.) not an account you put money in when you have some left over. The problem is you NEVER seem to have anything leftover because most people's lifestyle adjusts to fit their income. The best way to do this is have the money automatically drafted each month without any action required on your part. An employer sponsored 401K is a great way to do this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "343d01b5f2726763ff0f0cd166d76d57", "text": "\"I'm still recommending that you go to a professional. However, I'm going to talk about what you should probably expect the professional to be telling you. These are generalities. It sounds like you're going to keep working for a while. (If nothing else, it'll stave off boredom.) If that's the case, and you don't touch that $1.4 million otherwise, you're pretty much set for retirement and never need to save another penny, and you can afford to treat your girl to a nice dinner on the rest of your income. If you're going to buy expensive things, though - like California real estate and boats and fancy cars and college educations and small businesses - you can dip into that money but things will get trickier. If not, then it's a question of \"\"how do I structure my savings?\"\". A typical structure: Anywho. If you can research general principles in advance, you'll be better prepared.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348d5c009aaf87cb2c2f7769d92c96f2", "text": "No one knows if the market is high right now. To know that you would need to compare it to the future, not the past. If you put all your money in right now, you run the risk of putting it in at what turns out to be a bad time. If you spread it out, you will for sure put some of it in at a bad time (either the stuff you put in now, or the stuff you put in later). The strategy that, on average, will make you the most money is to put everything in now. If your risk tolerance allows that (it sounds like it does) then I think going all in makes sense. There really aren't significant downsides to buying a ton at once. You aren't going to move the needle on a big Vanguard fund with that amount and there isn't a tax consequence or anything to buying. Of course, when you sell, you will need to pay capital gains tax on any gains, but that's a later chapter. The bigger consideration is to be smart right now about avoiding taxes. If your income is low, max out your Roth IRAs. If you need to you can later use that money for a house or you can pull the contribution part out at any time if you want without a penalty. Is a $50K buffer too much? Normally I would say yes, it's excessive. I have 5 rather expensive kids and I keep $20K in cash, which seems high, if anything. However, if you are unemployed or your income isn't covering your expenses, then keeping a larger pot in cash makes good sense until your cash flow firms up. Setting $50K or something close to that aside sounds a lot like something I would do in your shoes. BTW where are you finding a savings account that pays 2%?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dd89a3b979537aa56baccb0c1159a488", "text": "I recommend pulling up a retirement calculator and having an honest conversation about how long term savings works, and the power of compound interest. Just by playing around with the sliders on an online calculator, you can demonstrate how the early years are the most important. Depending on how much they make now and are considering saving, delaying 5-10 years can easily leave 6-7 figures on the table. If it's specifically a child or close family member, I recommend pulling up your retirement account. Talk with them about how you managed it, and how much you were putting in. Perhaps show them how much is the principal and how much is interest. If you did well, tell them how. If you didn't do as well as you liked, tell them what you would have done differently. Finally, discuss a bit of psychology. Even if they don't have a professional job and are making minimum wage, getting into the habit of saving makes it easier when they eventually make more. A couple of dollars a month isn't much, but getting into the habit makes it easier to save a couple hundred dollars a month later on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e88382b08a124934ea96a6c792286bb", "text": "\"How will 45K-60K \"\"end up in your pocket\"\"? Are you selling your home? Where are you going to live? You talk about moving to Arizona, what is so magical about that place? Congratulations on making a wise purchase. Some people with new found money use it to correct past mistakes. However, if they do not change their behavior they end up in the same situation just less them money they once had. While 50K income is respectable at your age, it is below the national average for households. One factor in having a college education is those with them tend to experience shorter and fewer periods of unemployment especially for males. Nothing will ever replace hustle, however. I'd ask you to have a plan to raise your income. Can you double it in 5 years? You need to get rid of the revolving debt. Do that out of current income. No need to touch the house proceeds for something so small. Shoot for 9 months. Then you need to get rid of the speeding fines and the vehicle loan. That is a lot of vehicle for your income. Again, I would do that out of current income or by selling the vehicle and moving to something more inline with your income. As far as to moving or flipping foreclosures that is more of a question that has to do with your hopes and dreams. Do you want to move your children every 3 years? What if you move to Arizona and it turns out to be quite horrible? You and your wife need to sit down and discuss what is best for your family.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0bf6c93ee01579b41a39b34ab808bd0", "text": "\"I am in a different situation, because I earn more than I spend, but I have found that I need to make the money inaccessible if I want to really avoid spending it. I used to just throw my paychecks into a high-yield savings account, but eventually the balance was large enough that a \"\"large purchase\"\" didn't seem like \"\"that much\"\" (because I would have had so much left in the account after the purchase). It was way too easy for me to spend way too much. Now, I invest my savings automatically. The obvious benefit is my money has a much higher growth rate than a simple savings account (especially with fed interest rates so low). I invest most of my savings in 401(k)/IRA retirement accounts, where there are severe penalties for withdrawing prior to retirement age. Then, I invest a significant portion to a regular brokerage account, where the money is invested in stock and bond funds. This money is accessible within a few days of whenever I need it. The remainder of my savings goes into a savings account as cash I can get to at any time. All 3 accounts grow with every paycheck (market fluctuations aside). This 3-tiered system helps me to categorize my savings as \"\"Never, ever touch\"\" (retirement accounts), \"\"Touch, only if I can wait 3 days and am willing to pay taxes\"\" (brokerage account), or \"\"touch whenever you need it, with no penalties\"\" (Savings account). If my savings account grows too much, I'll move money from there to the brokerage account (where it has more growth potential). The longer my money is invested in the brokerage accounts, the less taxes I'll need to pay when I sell/withdraw the funds, so that's even more incentive for me to keep those funds where they are. I have credit cards, so in my opinion, having to wait 3 days for funds from my investment account to become accessible is considered \"\"accessible in an emergency,\"\" because my credit cards can be used to cover a large purchase for 3 days, and as long as I pay it off within the grace period, there's no interest charged. tl;dr investing is probably the smartest way to both grow your money and prevent the urge to spend it right away. My advice is to start with a 401(k) or IRA as soon as you can, since the younger you are, the more time until retirement that your money has to compound. Investing $100 more a month can mean hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in your account when you're ready to retire.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20c3b301bec3306599792e3f8e119b11", "text": "You will find lots of rules of thumb but there is no universal truth to how much you should save. There are factors you DO need to consider though: you should start as early as possible to set money aside for retirement. You should then use a retirement calculator to at least get an understanding of the amount you need to set aside each month to achieve the desired retirement income; your default should be not to spend money and only spend money when you must. Leisure, travel and eating out should come last after you have saved up; you should have funds for different terms. For example, my wife and I have an emergency fund for unexpected expenses or losses in income. The rule of thumb here generally is to have 3-6 months of salary saved up. A longer term fund should be created for larger expenses like buying a car or preparing the cashdown on a property. Finally, the retirement fund which should cover your needs after you have retired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6435f24f13a0fde33b0d612aa3ee4b3d", "text": "Firstly, make sure annual income exceeds annual expenses. The difference is what you have available for saving. Secondly, you should have tiers of savings. From most to least liquid (and least to most rewarding): The core of personal finance is managing the flow of money between these tiers to balance maximizing return on savings with budget constraints. For example, insurance effectively allows society to move money from savings to stocks and bonds. And a savings account lets the bank loan out a bit of your money to people buying assets like homes. Note that the above set of accounts is just a template from which you should customize. You might want to add in an FSA or HSA, extra loan payments, or taxable brokerage accounts, depending on your cash flow, debt, and tax situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b5a9693833bb4297095593573f88ccf", "text": "Budget. Figure out how much money you need to keep for your own spending purposes, then figure out from that how much you can afford to move to longer term savings for youeself and/or the kid. Try it for a while, see if it works, adjust how much you can afford to save, repeat. (Actually, you want to further reduce the savings a bit until the emergency fund comes up to a level you feel comfortable at, then increase them to acceptable targets.) It's OK if you miss or reduce some deposits to the savings plans while you get the emergency fund up to a level you're comfortable at. If you don't feel you're saving enough after making these adjustments, you need to economize somewhere so you have more money to save, or make more money, or recalibrate your expectations. You can't get a gallon out of a quart container.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a72ff5df7c10fc5819181bb3b972e83", "text": "Then buy an indexed ETF or mutual fund that tracks the S&P 500 and leave your money there until you need it. If you can (there are restrictions for income, etc.), try and setup a retirement vehicle, such as a Roth IRA to get tax advantages.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ad9de9c22565df9c3a2f565e531a525", "text": "\"First, two preliminaries, to address good points people made in comments. As AbraCadaver noted, before you move your $30k to something that might lose money, make sure you have enough cash to serve as an emergency fund in case you lose your income. Especially remember that big stock market crashes often go hand-in-hand with widespread layoffs. Also, you mentioned that you're maxed out in a 401k. As JoeTaxpayer hinted, this could very well already be invested in stocks, and, if it isn't, probably a big part of it should be. Regarding your $30k, you don't need to pay anybody. In general, fees and expenses can form a big drag on your investments, and it's good to avoid them as much as possible. In particular, especially with \"\"only\"\" $30k, it's unlikely that advisers can save you more than they cost. Also, all financial advisers have a cost: the \"\"free\"\" ones usually push you into investing in expensive funds that make them money at your expense. In that regard, keep in mind that, unlike a lawyer or a doctor, a financial adviser is not required by law to give advice that's in your best interest. When investing, there is a pretty short list of important considerations that you should keep in mind: (If anyone has any other points they think are similarly important, feel free to suggest an edit.) Practically speaking, I'd suggest investing in index funds. These are mutual funds that invest very broadly, in a \"\"passive\"\" way that doesn't spend a lot of effort (and money) trying to pick individual high-performing stocks or anything like that. Index funds provide a lot of diversification and tend to have low expense ratios. (Other, \"\"actively managed\"\" funds tend to be more expensive and often don't outperform index funds anyway.) If you're saving for retirement, there are even target date funds that are themselves composed of a small number of index funds (often domestic and international stocks and bonds), and will increase the proportion invested in bonds (safer) as they get closer to a target retirement date. See, for example the Vanguard Target Retirement 2045 fund. A fund like that one might be all you need if you are saving for retirement. Finally, you can invest online without paying any advisers. Not all companies are created equal, however; do your research. I personally highly recommend Vanguard, since they have a wide variety of no-load index funds and tend to have very low expense ratios. (No-load means you don't have to pay a fee to buy and sell.) Part of why they are inexpensive is that, unlike most financial companies, they are actually a cooperative owned by those who invest in their funds, so they don't need to try and milk a profit out of you. (Don't let that suggest that they're some \"\"small-potatoes hippie firm\"\", though: they're actually one of the largest.) I hope I helped. Keep posting if you have more questions!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e378125de7a4e64eb197719498d84bc", "text": "As a matter of fact, I invest small sums in stable stocks every month (in fact, much lesser than the $50 you are talking about). More than the return on investment, I gained a lot of knowledge keeping track of my stocks and this now helps me pick my stocks better. And the portfolio is doing great too. So, it is a good idea to start small and invest regularly.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
80ce7f5cd9e9d6f449ca4c6abec02e86	Should we invest some of our savings to protect against inflation?	[ { "docid": "f66d0e1fe62b5068d1117509d453bf15", "text": "\"Are there still people who keep significant amounts of money in a bank savings account? You could get ~1% by just choosing the right bank. ING Direct, for example, gives 0.8%, 4 times more than your credit union, with the same FDIC insurance! If you do want to invest in something slightly more long-term, you can get a CD. At the same ING Direct, you can get a 5-year CD with 1% APR. Comes with the same FDIC insurance. Note that I mention ING Direct just because I accidentally had their site open right in front of me, their rates are definitely not the highest right now. If you want to give up the FDIC insurance and take some more risks, you can invest your money in municipal bonds or various kinds of \"\"low risk\"\" mutual funds, which may yield 3-5% a year. If you want to take even more risks - there's a whole stock market available for you, with ETF's, mutual funds and individual stocks. Whether you should - that only you can tell. But you can have a NO-RISK investment yielding 4-5 times more than what you have right now, just saying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bac44a8c730685829aae631e9b51a6dc", "text": "\"Okay. Savings-in-a-nutshell. So, take at least year's worth of rent - $30k or so, maybe more for additional expenses. That's your core emergency fund for when you lose your job or total a few cars or something. Keep it in a good savings account, maybe a CD ladder - but the point is it's liquid, and you can get it when you need it in case of emergency. Replenish it immediately after using it. You may lose a little cash to inflation, but you need liquidity to protect you from risk. It is worth it. The rest is long-term savings, probably for retirement, or possibly for a down payment on a home. A blended set of stocks and bonds is appropriate, with stocks storing most of it. If saving for retirement, you may want to put the stocks in a tax-deferred account (if only for the reduced paperwork! egads, stocks generate so much!). Having some money (especially bonds) in something like a Roth IRA or a non-tax-advantaged account is also useful as a backup emergency fund, because you can withdraw it without penalties. Take the money out of stocks gradually when you are approaching the time when you use the money. If it's closer than five years, don't use stocks; your money should be mostly-bonds when you're about to use it. (And not 30-year bonds or anything like that either. Those are sensitive to interest rates in the short term. You should have bonds that mature approximately the same time you're going to use them. Keep an eye on that if you're using bond funds, which continually roll over.) That's basically how any savings goal should work. Retirement is a little special because it's sort of like 20 years' worth of savings goals (so you don't want all your savings in bonds at the beginning), and because you can get fancy tax-deferred accounts, but otherwise it's about the same thing. College savings? Likewise. There are tools available to help you with this. An asset allocation calculator can be found from a variety of sources, including most investment firms. You can use a target-date fund for something this if you'd like automation. There are also a couple things like, say, \"\"Vanguard LifeStrategy funds\"\" (from Vanguard) which target other savings goals. You may be able to understand the way these sorts of instruments function more easily than you could other investments. You could do a decent job for yourself by just opening up an account at Vanguard, using their online tool, and pouring your money into the stuff they recommend.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "818edb54d776c4eabb8f6feafd817655", "text": "If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "663112925ee04cb3694812a81d60eeba", "text": "\"I don't think QE \"\"masks\"\" inflation. The upward wage pressures to create inflation simply aren't there, and for that reason an increase in the monetary base is non-inflationary (as we've seen). Only during the exit, if the banks flood the economy with their excess reserves, could we see higher-than-moderate inflation\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d70dfe7af0a5ccacb9cdbbf24852a54", "text": "Hmm, looking at the macro economy, hoarding money will decrease the monetary supply, so the Fed will offset that with increases to the monetary supply to achieve target interest rates. Which will lead to higher inflation, hurting your savings minus debt. Exactly what's going on in the rest of the economy. For investment sake, can't you find something with at least some sort of return, rather than getting nothing with physical currency?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d2b6fbe48101ebb881deb9bc368cca2", "text": "Inflation is bad for people with lots of cash assets. It's good for debtors, particularly debtors with unsecured debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4539d14a460c05bbedaebb6a7be667", "text": "Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a98fba0c27c7f053d2da01a8f1a8a7a", "text": "I would put this money to a high-interest savings account. It will not earn you too much, but it will save it from inflation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddd515b9ee7e1314156eac28ec463373", "text": "Remind me again who held and was willing to loan out that debt? The investor classes partly created the risk environment that they now want protection from. convenient. If they're going to sit on their savings, they're going to comparatively lose more to inflation, so what you think will happen probably wouldn't happen. And even if they do, savings don't receive preferential tax treatment anyways.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1de019cd6cceea000d667a6014036f01", "text": "Series I Savings Bonds would be another option that have part of their return indexed to inflation though currently they are yielding 1.64% through April 30, 2016 though some may question how well is that 3% you quote as an inflation rate. From the first link: Series I savings bonds are a low-risk savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase electronic I bonds via TreasuryDirect or paper I bonds with your IRS tax refund. As a TreasuryDirect account holder, you can purchase, manage, and redeem I bonds directly from your web browser. TIPS vs I Bonds if you want to compare these products that are rather safe in terms of avoiding a nominal loss. This would be where a portion of the funds could go, not all of them at once.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dca1559289fffc177eda19252b171f5f", "text": "Your goals are mutually exclusive. You cannot both earn a return that will outpace inflation while simultaneously having zero-risk of losing money, at least not in the 2011 market. In 2008, a 5+% CD would have been a good choice. Here's a potential compromise... sacrifice some immediate liquidity for more earnings. Say you had $10,000 saved: In this scheme, you've diversified a little bit, have access to 50% of your money immediately (either through online transfer or bringing your bonds to a teller), have an implicit US government guarantee for 50% of your money and low risk for the rest, and get inflation protection for 75% of your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "beb1fdddf8e9c18e2038837e823bed0d", "text": "In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57f46a4c79475699b691a077e4921089", "text": "The one thing we know for certain is that holding large amounts of cash isn't ideal - inflation will eat away at your wealth. It's understandable that you're hesitant to put all your wealth in common stock. The S&P 500's price/earnings is 18.7 right now - a little high by historical standards. But consider that the S&P 500 has given a CAGR of approximately 10% (not inflation-adjusted) since 1970. If you don't time the market correctly, you could miss out on considerable gains. So it's probably best to invest at least a portion of your wealth in common stocks, and just accept the risk of short-term losses. You'll likely come out ahead in the long run, compared to an investor who tries to time the market and ends up holding cash positions for too long. If you really think US stocks are overpriced, you could look at other markets, but you'll find similar P/Es in Europe and Japan. You could try an emerging market fund like VEMAX if you have the risk tolerance. Let's say you're not convinced, and don't want to invest heavily in stocks right now. In the current market, safe cash alternatives like Treasury bills offer very low yields - not enough to offset inflation tax. So I would invest in a diversified portfolio of long-term bonds, real estate, maybe precious metals, and whatever amount of stock you're comfortable with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f43a0b7b433e2b4d389c13d44e373ed1", "text": "\"Yes... but it is a matter of balancing risks. It is wiser to keep a small amount of \"\"ready cash\"\" as an emergency/buffer -- and to suffer the gradual loss to inflation... Than it is risk becoming \"\"stuck\"\" in an emergency with zero dollars in any (low or no cost) source of funds -- those kinds of \"\"emergencies\"\" ($500 or $1,000 \"\"unexpected/unbudgeted\"\" expenses) are fairly frequent and virtually inevitable. You lose vastly MORE money when you are forced to borrow those amounts (interest -- even low-rate loans -- is virtually always higher than the average inflation rate).\"", "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": "2c367ceba9490ae54dce5a02b9fc2171", "text": "\"You're talking about money in a savings account, and avoiding the risks posed by an ongoing crisis, and avoiding risk. If you are risk-averse, and likely to need your money in the short term, you should not put your money in the stock market, even in \"\"safe\"\" stocks like P&G/Coca-Cola/etc. Even these safe stocks are at risk of wild price swings in the short- to intermediate-term, especially in the event of international crises such as major European debt defaults and the like. These stocks are suitable for long-term growth objectives, but they are not as a replacement for a savings account. Coca-Cola lost a third of its value between 2007 and 2009. (It's recovered, and is currently doing better than ever.) P&G went from $74/share to $46/share. (It's partially recovered and back at $63). On the other hand, these stocks may indeed be suitable as long-term investments to protect you against local currency inflation. And yes, they even pay dividends. If you're after this investment, a good option is probably a sector-specific exchange-traded fund, such as a consumer-staples ETF. It will likely be more diversified and safer than anything you could come up with using a list of individual stocks. You can also investigate recommendations that show up when you search for a \"\"defensive ETF\"\". If you do not wish to buy the ETF directly, you can also look at listings of the ETF's holdings. Read the prospectus for an idea of the risks associated with these funds. You can buy these funds with any brokerage that gives you access to US stock exchanges.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "feac8aba143a4a01affea2a93292e1ae", "text": "\"If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a \"\"crash\"\" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros. The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports). In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from). If the euro actually \"\"massively devalues\"\" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now. Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2df67d91e2c1c9ae4457d083be5beb0c", "text": "I think you're missing Simon Moore's point. His point is that, due to low inflation, the returns on almost all asset classes should be less than they have been historically, so we shouldn't rebalance our portfolio or withdraw from the market and hold cash based on the assumption that stocks (or any other asset) seem to be underperforming relative to historical trends. His last paragraph is written in case someone might misunderstand him, he is not advocating to hold cash, just that investors should not expect as good returns as has happened historically, since those happened in higher inflation environments. To explain: If the inflation rate historically has been 5% and now it's 2%, and the risk-free-market return should be about 2%, then historically the return on a risk-free asset would be 7% (2%+5%), and now it should be expected to be 4% (2%+2%). So, if you have had a portfolio over some time you might be concerned that the rate of return is worsening, but Simon's point is that before you sell off your stocks / switch investment brokers, you should try to figure out if inflation is the cause of the performance loss. On the subject of cash: cash always loses value over time from inflation, since inflation is a measure of the increase in prices over time-- it's a part of the definition of what inflation is. That said, cash holdings lose value more slowly when inflation is lower, so they are relatively less worse than before. The future value of cash doesn't go up in low inflation (you'd need deflation for that), it just decreases at a lower rate, that is, it becomes less expensive to hold- but there still is a price. As an addendum, unless a completely new economic paradigm is adopted by world leaders, we will always see cash holdings decrease in value over time, since modern economics holds that deflation is one of the worst things that can happen to an economy.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7da0630c9792d855ed874a15b1c0a936	Are there any other investing methods I should look into?	[ { "docid": "f563653c4d8ad0a771b128eb73c00cdc", "text": "401Ks and IRAs are types of retirement accounts. They have rules regarding maximum amount of investments per year; who can invest; destructibility; and the tax treatment of the growth. Stock, bonds, mutual funds, ETFs are all types of investments that can exist either inside or outside of the retirement account. Some 401Ks restrict the type of investments you can have, others allow you to own almost anything. Any investment is a risk, and there is no guarantee that it will grow. Look around the site for beginning investment advice. You should start with the 401K offered by your company especially if they have matching funds. That is free money. Many suggest you invest enough to get the match, then invest with an IRA. Look into IRAs because under US tax law you can still make a 2013 investment up until tax day 2014. Take the time before tax day to decide on Roth or Regular IRA. The more exotic investments take more time to understand and should not be a concern until you have laid out your basic retirement accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0231a1ed438596a093df5865378641ef", "text": "To expand on mhoran's answer - Once you mention the 401(k), we're compelled to ask (a) what is the match, if any, and (b) what are the expenses within the funds offered. Depositing to get the full match is going to get you the biggest return on your money. It's common to get a dollar for dollar match on the first 5 or 6% of your income. If the fees are high, you stop at the match, and move to an IRA for the next money you wish to save. At 22, I'd probably focus on the Roth. If you have access to a Roth 401(k), that's great, the match will be pre tax dollars and you'll get started with a decent tax status mix. These accounts can form the core of your investing. Most people have little left over once their retirement accounts are fully funded. And yes, reading to understand stocks is great, but also to understand why stock indexing is the best choice for most investors.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "51eb7c2fbc7b14b84666469006ba81f2", "text": "CDs may be one good option if you have a sense of when you may need the money(-ish), especially with more generous early withdrawal penalties. You can also take a look at investing in a mix of stock and bond funds, which will lower you volatility compared to stocks, but increase your returns over bonds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c7dbf0512932aa995f8d4924466f134", "text": "\"Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change. Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private. We'd already been investing by that point. But what I did: 1. I took my time. 2. I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes. you shouldn't have this problem. 3. I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4. I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5. I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6. I set aside a chunk to spend later 7. I invested a chunk. A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that \"\"spend later\"\" chunk. It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car... all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for \"\"future spending.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "562199728b298b68e02ab2224814095c", "text": "\"Your only real alternative is something like T-Bills via your broker or TreasuryDirect or short-term bond funds like the Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Fund. The problem with this strategy is that these options are different animals than a money market. You're either going to subject yourself to principal risk or lose the flexibility of withdrawing the money. A better strategy IMO is to look at your overall portfolio and what you actually want. If you have $100k in a money market, and you are not going to need $100k in cash for the forseeable future -- you are \"\"paying\"\" (via the low yield) for flexibility that you don't need. If get your money into an appropriately diversified portfolio, you'll end up with a more optimal return. If the money involved is relatively small, doing nothing is a real option as well. $5,000 at 0.5% yields $25, and a 5% return yields only $250. If you need that money soon to pay tuition, use for living expenses, etc, it's not worth the trouble.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06cabc9409ed479bef4f066363863dbb", "text": "\"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea063d3946d8ef4e5bcd5d26d2cf5a0f", "text": "There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "733bdfd0269c974184d15a1ad82c5f9a", "text": "For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76f9c1624e8075f65a31b13631eb4648", "text": "I think you are right. I hear people all the time with horror stories about futures and trading horror stories in general. I want to learn about this market, but I don't want to go in without some education on the matter. I watched their video on options on futures, but the valuation method needs a bit more explaining to be (beta, gamma, etc.). I get the basic idea of options on futures, but I need to formulate a strategy, and that is where study would come in. I have wanted to play around with a few strategies I had in my head for regular options, and by the time I get the grasp of it, I might be able to trade options on futures. I guess my biggest thing with options on futures is not to be sophisticated, but more so I can have access to new markets. On the topic of options though, I do think there is some strategies that could boost my returns a bit on my existing strategies. I think selling various options (selling call options on weak dividend stocks stuck as bulk shipper or mortgage reits and as of late oil trusts or selling put options on some stronger oil reits or other stronger dividend stocks). The only problem is I don't know if the premium would be enough to make it worth while with the weak dividend stocks. So either way, even if you are only earning a conservative 9% on dividends, if you add in another 4% for premium, you could be making 13% off of one trade, and could repeat the process (assuming the target stayed weak or strong).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6b93d56422824ec67ede47fd8faf611", "text": "Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63edf1941f8f892ba7c319e07a6d3327", "text": "\"There are many questions and good answers here regarding investment choices. The first decision you need to make is how involved do you intend to be in investment activity. If you plan to be actively investing by yourself, you should look for questions here about making investment choices. If you intend to be a more passive investor, look for posts by \"\"Bogleheads\"\", who focus on broad-focused, low cost investments. This is the optimal choice for many people. If you are not comfortable managing investments at all, you need to figure out how to find a competent and reasonably priced financial advisor to meet with and guide your investment strategy. This advice generally costs about 1-2% of your total managed assets annually.\"", "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": "74d7ad4cb9f02118401ae5f419d3de31", "text": "\"I'm 39 and have been investing since my very early 20's, and the advice I'd like to go back and give myself is the following: 1) Time is your friend. Compounding interest is a powerful force and is probably the most important factor to how much money you are going to wind up with in the end. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can. You have to run twice as hard to catch up if you start late, and you will still probably wind up with less in the end for the extra effort. 2) Don't invest 100% of your investment money It always bugged me to let my cash sit idle in an investment account because the niggling notion of inflation eating up my money and I felt I was wasting opportunity cost by not being fully invested in something. However, not having enough investable cash around to buy into the fire-sale dips in the market made me miss out on opportunities. 3) Diversify The dot.com bubble taught me this in a big, hairy painful way. I had this idea that as a technologist I really understood the tech bubble and fearlessly over-invested in Tech stocks. I just knew that I was on top of things as an \"\"industry insider\"\" and would know when to jump. Yeah. That didn't work out so well. I lost more than 6 figures, at least on paper. Diversification will attenuate the ups and downs somewhat and make the market a lot less scary in the long run. 4) Mind your expenses It took me years of paying huge full-service broker fees to realize that those clowns don't seem to do any better than anyone else at picking stocks. Even when they do, the transaction costs are a lead weight on your returns. The same holds true for mutual funds/ETFs. Shop for low expense ratios aggressively. It is really hard for a fund manager to consistently beat the indexes especially when you burden the returns with expense ratios that skim an extra 1% or so off the top. The expense ratio/broker fees are among the very few things that you can predict reliably when it comes to investments, take advantage of this knowledge. 5) Have an exit strategy for every investment People are emotional creatures. It is hard to be logical when you have skin in the game and most people aren't disciplined enough to just admit when they have a loser and bail out while they are in the red or conversely admit when they have a winner and take profits before the party is over. It helps to counteract this instinct to have an exit strategy for each investment you buy. That is, you will get out if it drops by x% or grows by y%. In fact, it is probably a good idea to just enter those sell limit orders right after you buy the investment so you don't have to convince yourself to press the eject button in the heat of a big move in the price of that investment. Don't try to predict tops or bottoms. They are extremely hard to guess and things often turn so fast that you can't act on them in time anyway. Get out of an investment when it has met your goal or is going to far in the wrong direction. If you find yourself saying \"\"It has to come back eventually\"\", slap yourself. When you are trying to decide whether to stay in the investment or bail, the most important question is \"\"If I had the current cash value of the stock instead of shares, would I buy it today?\"\" because essentially that is what you are doing when you stick with an investment. 6) Don't invest in fads When you are investing you become acutely sensitive to everyone's opinions on what investment is hot and what is not. If everyone is talking about a particular investment, avoid it. The more enthusiastic people are about it (even experts) the MORE you should avoid it. When everyone starts forming investment clubs at work and the stock market seems to be the preferred topic of conversation at every party you go to. Get out! I'm a big fan of contrarian investing. Take profits when it feels like all the momentum is going into the market, and buy in when everyone seems to be running for the doors.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54b2d8e307104d0ed9651537bd06468e", "text": "A lot of people here talk about shorting stocks, buying options, and messing around with leveraged ETFs. While these are excellent tools, that offer novel opportunities for the sophisticated investor, Don't mess around with these until you have been in the game for a few years. Even if you can make money consistently right out of the gate, don't do it. Why? Making money isn't your challenge, NOT LOSING money is your challenge. It's hard to measure the scope of the risk you are assuming with these strategies, much less manage it when things head south. So even if you've gotten lucky enough to have figured out how to make money, you surely haven't learned out how to hold on to it. I am certain that every beginner still hasn't figured out how to comprehend risk and manage losing positions. It's one of those things you only figure out after dealing with it. Stocks (with little to no margin) are a great place to learn how to lose because your risk of losing everything is drastically lower than with the aforementioned tools of the sophisticated investor. Despite what others may say you can make out really well just trading stocks. That being said, one of my favorite beginner strategies is buying stocks that dip for reasons that don't fundamentally affect the company's ability to make money in the mid term (2 quarters). Wallstreet loves these plays because it shakes out amateur investors (release bad news, push the stock down shorting it or selling your position, amateurs sell, which you buy at a discount to the 'fair price'.) A good example is Netflix back in 2007. There was a lawsuit because netflix was throttling movie deliveries to high traffic consumers. The stock dropped a good chunk overnight. A more recent example is petrobras after their huge bond sale and subsequent corruption scandal. A lot of people questioned Petrobras' long-term ability to maintain sufficient liquidity to pay back the loans, but the cashflow and long term projections are more than solid. A year later the stock was pushed further down because a lot of amateur Brazilians invest in Petrobras and they sold while the stock was artificially depressed due to a string of corruption scandals and poor, though temporary, economic conditions. One of my favorite plays back in 2008-2011 was First Solar on the run-up to earnings calls. Analysts would always come out of these meetings downgrading the stock and the forums were full of pikers and pumpers claiming heavy put positions. The stock would go down considerably, but would always pop around earnings. I've made huge returns on this move. Those were the good ole days. Start off just googling financial news and blogs and look for lawsuits and/or scandals. Manufacturing defects or recalls. Starting looking for companies that react predictably to certain events. Plot those events on your chart. If you don't know how to back-test events, learn it. Google Finance had a tool for that back in the day that was rudimentary but helpful for those starting out. Eventually though, moreso than learning any particular strategy, you should learn these three skills: 1) Tooling: to gather, manipulate, and visualize data on your own. These days automated trading also seems to be ever more important, even for the small fish. 2) Analytical Thinking learn to spot patterns of the three types: event based (lawsuits, arbitrage, earnings etc), technical (emas, price action, sup/res), or business-oriented (accounting, strategy, marketing). Don't just listen to what someone else says you should do at any particular moment, critical thinking is essential. 3) Emotions and Attitude: learn how to comprehend risk and manage your trigger finger. Your emotions are like a blade that you must sharpen every day if you want to stay in the game. Disclaimer: I stopped using this strategy in 2011, and moved to a pure technical trading regime. I've been out totally out of the game since 2015.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9abd734c052c72e2797dde2201b88db1", "text": "\"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44beeea37021636a991cbd1b3be2a496", "text": "You don't say what kinds of mutual funds, or what bonds. You don't say how old you are. You seem to have enough cushion to strike out on your own comfortably. This is good. Compared with Vanguard's management fees, the fees you're paying are pretty high. The bottom line of what to invest in rests with you. If you outsource it, it's still your money. The managers get paid whether you make money or not. You have lots of other options: real estate from a distressed seller, commodities, currencies, websites, or other things where you have a knowledge advantage. For the time being, though, if you're concerned about your main income stream, I wouldn't get terribly risky with your money. Cash is just peachy in that case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f81cfe7826c35c5015dcfe8210c013b", "text": "\"I don't know really is the best investment strategy. People think that they have to know everything to make money. But realistically, out of the hundreds of thousands of publicly traded securities, you really can only invest in a tiny number of them. Of the course of a week, you literally have more than a million \"\"buy\"\" or \"\"don't buy\"\" decisions, because the prices of those securities fluctuate every day. Simply due to the fact that there are so many securities, you cannot know what everything is going to do. You have to say \"\"I don't know\"\". Also, when you do understand something, it is usually fairly priced. So will you make money on it? \"\"I don't know\"\". Only very rarely will you find something that you actually understand well and it is significantly undervalued. You can be looking at a company a day for two years before you find it. But people get trigger happy. They bet on 51%/49% odds when they should only bet on 90%/10% odds or higher. If you are forced to bet on everything, it makes sense that you bet on everything you believe is greater than 50% chance of winning. But since you cannot bet on everything, you should only bet on the highest quality bets, those with greater than 90% chance of winning. To find such a bet, you may have to shuffle through 100 different companies and only make 2-3 bets. You are looking for something that is at least 2 standard deviations away from the mean. People are not good at doing a lot of work, most of which yields nothing, to find one big payoff. They are wired to only look at the present, so they take the best bet they can see at the moment, which is often barely above 50% (and with any misjudgment, it may actually be well below 50%). And people are not good at understanding compound/geometric growth. You can keep multipling 10% gains (1.10 * 1.10 * 1.10 ...), but that can all be wiped out by multiplying by one zero, which is why taking a 51%/49% bet is so dangerous (even though technically it is an advantageous one). They forget to adjust for the geometric aspect of compounding. A 99%/1% bet is one you should take, but if you are allowed to repeat it and you keep going all-in, you will eventually lose and have $0, which is the same as if you took a single all-in bet that has 0% chance of winning. As Buffett says, if you are only allowed to make 20 investments over a lifetime, you will most likely do better because it prevents you from making many of these mistakes.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d7abc353e316524c18071ff472a5e80c	When to liquidate mutual funds for a home downpayment	[ { "docid": "7ecd3e8cf2e7fe0f482e48d46fdbfdda", "text": "\"This question is calling for a somewhat subjective answer. What I would recommend is liquidate now, since it is a stock fund and stocks have performed very well this year, no need to be greedy and hope that they do as well in 2014. Since it is not an enormous amount of money, put it in an interest yielding savings account which unfortunately are all sub 1%. But the key here is since we cannot predict the markets, no investment is going to be \"\"safer\"\". You want the 18k to be there when you need it for the down payment. If you invest it in a fund now, you may not be able to get at least 18k at the time you are forcing yourself to liquidate. A good rule for investing is never to have to sell to make a purchase because there is a high probability that you will be selling at a sub-optimal price. Some savings accounts that have slightly higher yields. http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/01/pf/savings-account-yields/\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4b1cb0ad4e652985327450bce1e0935f", "text": "There is no correct answer. It all depends on you. If you have a fund dedicated to a purpose (house, car, daycare, vacation, etc), in my opinion you are best served by keeping it dedicated to that function in most cases. Say that you find a home that you want to by in two years. If you have good credit and appropriate debt/income ratios, your car payment will not pose a problem to getting that home. But not having enough money for a down payment will.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1231694b43f21676f8c9d19c660b1fc9", "text": "The primary reason to put 20% down on your home is to avoid paying PMI (private mortgage insurance). Anyone who buys a house with a down-payment of under 20% is required to pay for this insurance (which protects the lender in case you default on your loan). PMI is what enables people to buy homes with as little as 3-5% down. I would recommend against paying more than 20%, because having liquidity for emergency funds, or other investments will give you the sort of flexibility that's good to have when the economy isn't so great. Depending on whether the house you purchase is move-in ready or a fixer-upper, having funds set aside for repairs is a good idea as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5d4190e4e9d5d39e206d1e79faa6f863", "text": "The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year? Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this? In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8d5c327ce6e719e6a82fda9724475de", "text": "While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group. (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.) That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage. IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan. (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.) That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine. If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me. I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements. The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan. That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan. And vice-versa. Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f4781c6ce55d9e33213722d099d2ca3e", "text": "Down payment: Emphatically avoid PMI if at all possible; it's pouring money down the drain. Do 20% down if you can, or pay off enough to bring you above 20% and ask for PMI to be removed as soon as you can. Beyond that it's a matter of how much risk you want to accept and how long you'll own the place, and you'll have to run the numbers for the various alternatives -- allowing for uncertainty in your investments -- to guide your decision. Do not assume you will be able to make a profit when you sell the house; that's the mistake which left many people under water and/or foreclosed on. Do not assume that you will be able to sell it quickly; it can take a year of more. Do not assume immediate or 100% occupancy it you rent it out; see many other answers here for more realistic numbers.... and remember that running a rental is a business and has ongoing costs and hassles. (You can contract those out, but then you lose a good percentage of the rent income.) Double mortgage is another great way to dig yourself into a financial hole; it can be a bigger cost than the PMI it tries to dodge and is definitely a bigger risk. Don't.", "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": "2fe8d4d9dc64c2444c8bf4f0f9589930", "text": "In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ae448ccd57cb343c8e0b02e1b9181e", "text": "Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock, and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "997ffcf0eb3fb67c5b69f9379e46ed51", "text": "If you can get a mortgage with 10% downpayment and the seller will accept (some may want at least 20% downpayment for whatever reasons) and with PMI it still lower than your rent, sounds like it's a good idea to buy now. Of course this assumes that the money you'd be otherwise saving for 20% downpayment will be used to pay off a mortgage faster.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "101679bbac4e296e705bad5e77b74459", "text": "I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a9dbe7f5f0b136736a208fcb32b3c391", "text": "\"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"", "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": "028fcc6ae27f514d32d83e49aaf40a33", "text": "The only problem that I see is that by not giving the 20% right away, you might need to pay PMI for a few months. In addition, in the case of conventional loans, I heard that banks will not remove the PMI after reaching 80% LTV without doing an appraisal. In order to be removed automatically, you need to reach 78% LTV. Finally, I think you can get a better interest by giving 20% down, and you can get a conventional loan instead of a FHA loan, which offers the option to avoid the PMI altogether (on FHA, you have two PMIs: one upfront and one monthly, and the monthly one is for the life of the loan if you give less than 10%).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5d3016a155eb2f31a449a5113d2a095", "text": "Your 5-8 year time frame is interesting because it is actually a two windows. When people are savings for retirement, they tell us how many years or decades they have until they reach retirement age. But they also imply that they are planning on spending decades withdrawing the money. But you wanting the money for a house in 5-8 years are needing the money more like somebody who is saving college money for a teenager. In fact your plan is similar in time frame as a 13 year old has for their college fund; start in 5 years but only have a 4 year spending window. Take the California 529 program: Beneficiary Age 13-14: Beneficiary Age 18+: The funding agreement provides a minimum guaranteed rate of return on the >amounts allocated to it by the Investment Portfolio. The minimum effective >annual interest rate will be neither less than 1% nor greater than 3% at >any time. So you plan of investing 100% in the S&P with your window is way too risky. You should only invest a portion of your down payment in equities, and be prepared to only be in that mode for a few years. Any drop in the market now hurts you, but one just before you need the funds would be devastating.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
4c0184bd8faf63f4d88adb02bda5edc6	Employee stock option plan with undefined vesting?	[ { "docid": "1a91f241484d8fb7c47777874708f305", "text": "\"An option without the vesting period and the price at which one can exercise the option is of not much value. If vesting is determined by board, then at any given point in time they can change the vesting period to say 3, 5, 10 years any number. The other aspect is at what price you are allowed to exercise the option, ie if the stock is of value 10, you may be given an option to buy this at 10, 20 or 100. This has to be stated upfront for you to know the real value. On listing if the value is say 80, then if you have the option to exercise at 10, or 20 you would make money, else at 100 you loose money and hence choose not to exercise the option. However your having stuck around the company for \"\"x\"\" years in anticipation of making money would go waste. Without a vesting period or the price to exercise the option, they are pretty much meaningless and would depend on the goodwill of the founders\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "770df35c04201c3059a81b3e43c56df9", "text": "\"Not necessarily. The abbreviation \"\"ESOP\"\" is ambiguous. There are at least 8 variations I know of: You'll find references on Google to each of those, some more than others. For fun you can even substitute the word \"\"Executive\"\" for \"\"Employee\"\" and I'm sure you'll find more. Really. So you may be mistaken about the \"\"O\"\" referring to \"\"options\"\" and thereby implying it must be about options. Or, you may be right. If you participate in such a plan (or program) then check the documentation and then you'll know what it stands for, and how it works. That being said: companies can have either kind of incentive plan: one that issues stock, or one that issues options, with the intent to eventually issue stock in exchange for the option exercise price. When options are issued, they usually do have an expiration date by which you need to exercise if you want to buy the shares. There may be other conditions attached. For instance, whether the plan is about stocks or options, often there is a vesting schedule that determines when you become eligible to buy or exercise. When you buy the shares, they may be registered directly in your name (you might get a fancy certificate), or they may be deposited in an account in your name. If the company is small and private, the former may be the case, and if public, the latter may be the case. Details vary. Check the plan's documentation and/or with its administrators.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a2cb7d76c579655e90db636cdc2c738", "text": "There's no one answer. You need to weigh the fees and quality of investment options on the one side against the slowly vesting employer contribution and tax benefits of 401k contributions in excess of IRA limits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abe1bdfd75ae3be1ffe8588abac21765", "text": "This situation sounds better than most, the company it seems likely to be profitable in the future. As such it is a good candidate to have a successful IPO. With that your stock options are likely to be worth something. How much of that is your share is likely to be very small. The workers that have been their since the beginning, the venture capitalist, and the founders will make the majority of profits from an IPO or sale. Since you and others hired at a similar time as you are assuming almost no risk it is fair that your share of the take is small. Despite being 1/130 employees expect your share of the profits to be much smaller than .77%. How about we go with .01%? Lets also assume that they go public in 2.5 years and that revenues during that time continue to increase by about 25M/year. Profit margins remains the same. So revenues to 112M, profits to 22.5M. Typically the goal for business is to pay no more than 5 times profits, that could be supplanted by other factors, but let's assume that figure. So about 112M from the IPO. So .01% of that is about 11K. That feels about right. Keep in mind there would be underwriting fees, and also I would discount that figure for things that could go wrong. I'd be at about 5K. That would be my expected value figure, 5K. I'd also understand that there is a very small likelihood that I receive that amount. The value received is more likely to be zero, or enough to buy a Ferarri. There might also be some value in getting to know these people. If this fails will their next venture be a success. In my own life, I went to work for a company that looked great on paper that just turned out to be a bust. Great concept, horrible management, and within a couple of years of being hired, the company went bust. I worked like a dog for nothing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6519f20aea49e347c7bdd2a69b3fbae6", "text": "Unfortunately, the money that is not vested is not yours. It belongs to your employer. They have promised to give it to you after you have been with the company for a certain length of time, but if you aren't still with the company after that time, no matter what the reason, the money never becomes yours. Sorry to hear about this. It would have been nice if your company had waived the vesting requirement like this guy's employer did, but I don't think they are required to do so, unfortunately. If it's a lot of money, you could ask an attorney, but as @JoeTaxpayer said, AT&T and IBM probably know what they are doing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6f1061862d29930fecfddd11df34c74", "text": "I've had stock options at two different jobs. If you are not getting a significant ownership stake, but rather just a portion of options as incentive to come work there, I would value them at $0. If you get the same salary and benefits, but no stock options at another company and you like the other company better, I'd go to the other company. I say this because there are so many legal changes that seem to take value from you that you might as well not consider the options in your debate. That being said, the most important question I'd want to know is what incentive does the company have to going public or getting bought? If the company is majority owned by investors, the stock options are likely to be worth something if you wait long enough. You are essentially following someone else's bet. If the company is owned by 2 or 3 individuals who want to make lots of money, they may or may not decide to sell or go public.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db96aca55b045235a2a64b26af02948f", "text": "\"I don't think its a taxable event since no income has been constructively received (talking about the RSU shareholders here). I believe you're right with the IRC 1033, and the basis of the RSU is the basis of the original stock option (probably zero). Edit: see below. However, once the stock becomes vested - then it is a taxable event (not when the cash is received, but when the chance of forfeiture diminishes, even if the employee doesn't sell the stock), and is an ordinary income, not capital. That is my understanding of the situation, do not consider it as a tax advice in any way. I gave it a bit more though and I don't think IRC 1033 is relevant. You're not doing any exchange or conversion here, because you didn't have anything to convert to begin with, and don't have anything after the \"\"conversion\"\". Your ISO's are forfeited and no longer available, basically - you treat them as you've never had them. What happened is that you've received RSU's, and you treat them as a regular RSU grant, based on its vesting schedule. The tax consequences are exactly as I described in my original response: you recognize ordinary income on the vested stocks, as they vest. Your basis is zero (i.e.: the whole FMV of the stock at the time of vesting is your ordinary income). It should also be reflected in your W2 accordingly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1749b87a6b63cb5a2c23d27a3d647519", "text": "\"I'm in the US, so there may be idiosyncrasies with UK taxes that I'm not familiar with, but here's how I've always treated stock I get as compensation. Suppose the vested shares are worth X. If I had X in cash, would I buy my company's stock as an investment? Usually the answer is no, not because I think the stock will tank, but because there's better things I can do with that cash (pay off debt, unfortunately). Therefore I sell the shares and use the cash for something else. You have stock options. So suppose the stock value is X but you can buy it for Y. You can either: Therefore, the math is the same. If you had X in cash, would you buy your company's stock as an investment? If so, then option 2 is best, because you can get X in stock for a lower cost. (Option 3 might be better if the gain on the stock will be taxed higher, but they're pretty much equivalent if there's no chance that the stock will drop below Y) If not, then option 4 is best since you will likely get more than X-Y from selling the options that by exercising them and selling the stock (since options have time value). If option 4 is not a possibility, then option 1 is best - you pocket X-Y as \"\"income\"\" and invest it however you see fit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "742316b384830a9f67b1074484b927cb", "text": "The answer to your question as asked is no. Call options, even those issued by the company, cannot create new shares unless they are employee stock options. Company-issued warrants, on the other hand, can create new shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8c306b677f5d103ee555099fdd8e9b4", "text": "Vesting typically stops after you quit. So, if your plan vests 20% per year for 5 years, and you received a one-time stock grant as part of this plan (i.e., ignoring the fact that these often involve new grants each year that vest separately), and you were hired in 2014 and leave at the end of 2016, then you vested 20% in 2015 and 20% in 2016, so would have 40% of the stock vested when you quit, and would never have more than that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67f33de28ea5fcfa179dcf7a350779dc", "text": "Is this an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP)? If so, and there is no required holding period, selling right away is essentially a guaranteed bonus with minimal risk. One caveat is that sometimes it takes a while to actually receive the shares at your brokerage, and in the meantime your company may have an earnings report that could cause the share price to drop. If your discount is only 5%, for example, a bad earnings report could easily wipe that out. The only other cons I can think of is ESPP contributions being withheld from you for months (albeit for a virtually guaranteed return), and it complicates your taxes a bit. On the flip side, another pro is that after you sell the shares, you are more likely to invest that money rather than spend it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bed338db9cdf1dd0f3be10e06e8adaf3", "text": "\"Yes, this is restricted by law. In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading \"\"When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?\"\"): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments. Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made. You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question. Maybe the law was different then?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "918f267b3a111a1c84700ba7d983896e", "text": "I've been through two instances where I worked for a public company that was merged (for stock) into another company. In both cases the options I had were replaced with equivalent options in the merged company with the number of shares and strike price adjusted at the same rate as the actual stock was converted, and the vesting terms remained essentially the same. In other words, the options before and after were in essence equivalent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01a8d67d87bc2e887865b146dfa421d3", "text": "There are some nuances with HCE definition. To answer your questions. It's compensation as defined by the plan. Usually it's gross comp, but it can exclude things like fringe benefits, overtime pay, commissions, bonuses, etc. The compensation test is also a look-back test, meaning that an EE is determined to be an HCE in the current year if their compensation in the previous year was over the limit. I'm not sure how stock options affect this, but I expect they would be counted. Probably have an ESOP plan at that point too which is a whole other can-o-woms. The 5% owner test applies to the current year and also has a one-year look-back period. If at ANY point, even for a day, an employee was more than 5% owner, they are HCE for that year and next. Yes there is a limit. A company may limit the amount of HCE's to the top 20% of employees by pay like Aganju said. They can also disregard employees that may otherwise have been excluded under the plan using statutory exclusions. Example, they can disregard employees under 21 years and with less than 1 year of service. Hahaha, the IRS does not like to concisely define things. You can look here, that's probably as concise as you'll get. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "284c486ca2a8ccd6a4b1fab62921e22f", "text": "Options or Shares vest by date they are granted. It would strike me as odd for anyone to say their shares were given with 4 year vesting, but the clock was pre-started years prior. In my opinion, you have nothing to complain about.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
00db690d858912c13bd2380cfd1a692b	The board of directors in companies	[ { "docid": "cc022dee1f20d890acc672671bf68137", "text": "Boards of Directors are required for corporations by nearly all jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have almost self-defeating requirements however, such as in tax havens. Boards of Directors are compensated by the company for which they sit. Historically, they have set their own compensation almost always with tight qualitative legal bounds, but in the US, that has now changed, so investors now set Director compensation. Directors are typically not given wages or salary for work but compensation for expenses. For larger companies, this is semantics since compensation averages around one quarter of a million of USD. Regulations almost always proscribe agencies such as other corporations from sitting on boards and individuals convicted of serious crimes as well. Some jurisdictions will even restrict directories to other qualities such as solvency. While directors are elected by shareholders, their obligations are normally to the company, and each jurisdiction has its own set of rules for this. Almost always, directors are forbidden from selling access to their votes. Directors are almost always elected by holders of voting stock after a well-publicized announcement and extended time period. Investors are almost never restricted from sitting on a board so long as they meet the requirements described above.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1ca3c5ec07188a8c92c46fb578d192c7", "text": "Converting the comment from @MD-Tech into answer How or where could I find info about publicly traded companies about how stock owner friendly their compensation schemes are for their board and officers? This should be available in the annual report, probably in a directors' remunerations section for most companies", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c1b357082bb4a761064d615f1f858a1", "text": "Except: it's a material concern at every company. If the senior executives all quit at the same time, this is going to be problematic no matter what company we're discussing. I wouldn't be surprised if most 10-Ks have similar generic language.", "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": "3f66d5baa80fec1f570bf779849b435e", "text": "Also keep note - some companies have a combined CEO/Chairman of the board role. While he/she would not be allowed to negotiate contracts or stock plans, some corporate governance analysts advocate for the separation of the roles to remove any opportunity for the CEO to unduly influence the board. This could be the case for dysfunctional boards. However, the alternate camps will say that the combined role has no negative effect on shareholder returns. SEC regulations require companies to disclose negotiations between the board and CEO (as well as other named executives) for contracts, employee stock plans, and related information. Sometimes reading the proxy statement to find out, for example, how many times the board meets a year, how many other boards a director serves on, and if the CEO sits on any other board (usually discouraged to serve on more than 2) will provide some insight into a well-run (or not well-run) board.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1f1fdd5eb17dbef71fb241a2edc2e2f", "text": "She was there for 5 years. Someone brought in to sell the company is going to do it in 12-18 months, 24 max. She is probably a good #2 but not CEO material. There are many people like that who need some direction from the person above them but aren't good actually being the top person. I'd blame the board for not realizing this as much as I'd blame her.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d21b3746e0c66b39ff8538ccd42fcd", "text": "\"Owning more than 50% of a company's stock normally gives you the right to elect a majority, or even all of a company's (board of) directors. Once you have your directors in place, you can tell them who to hire and fire among managers. There are some things that may stand in the way of your doing this. First, there may be a company bylaw that says that the directors can be replaced only one \"\"class\"\" at a time, with three or four \"\"classes.\"\" Then it could take you two or three years to get control of the company. Second, there may be different classes of shares with different voting rights, so if e.g. \"\"A\"\" shares controlled by the founding family gives them ten votes, and \"\"B\"\" shares owned by the other shareholders, you may have a majority of total shares and be outvoted by the \"\"A\"\" shares.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ebe9fa4ee74084e85bce4600ba68755", "text": "Oh the company I work for now. Victim of a poor CEO that has turned into poor leadership across the board. There are directors I'd love to meet, act very interested in why they do things the way they do. The interest wouldn't even be faked. I'm genuinely curious how someone could have so many stupid ideas. Then tell them they suck and they're fired.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11e1ebe3d71db1e3366bbc19928f5024", "text": "\"The usual pattern is that shareholders don't run companies in a practical sense, so \"\"if someone was just simply rich to buy > 50%, but does not know how to handle the company\"\" doesn't change anything. In large companies, the involvement of shareholders is limited to a few votes on key issues such as allocating profit (how much to keep in company vs pay in dividends) and choosing board members. And board members also don't run the company - they oversee how the company is being run, and choose executives who will actually run the company. If a rich person simply buys 50% and doesn't desire to get personally involved, then they just vote for whatever board members seem apropriate and forget about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "440e6d89d62ad2fff4d6628f0c06caf1", "text": "your request was fine. Business is multi-disciplinary and requires seeing things from many aspects, changing your perspective regularly. Our CEO changes which dimensions to evaluate his business every six months - at the top is porfitable growth, then every aspect of the business that influences that outcome is flipped and re-examined. He's been remarkably successful his entire career", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0a75c6f74188ba156f3b7ab5fda265f", "text": "First, the stock does represent a share of ownership and if you have a different interpretation I'd like to see proof of that. Secondly, when the IPO or secondary offering happened that put those shares into the market int he first place, the company did receive proceeds from selling those shares. While others may profit afterward, it is worth noting that more than a few companies will have secondary offerings, convertible debt, incentive stock options and restricted stock that may be used down the road that are all dependent upon the current trading share price in terms of how useful these can be used to fund operations, pay executives and so forth. Third, if someone buys up enough shares of the company then they gain control of the company which while you aren't mentioning this case, it is something to note as some individuals buy stock so that they can take over the company which happens. Usually this has more of an overall plan but the idea here is that getting that 50%+1 control of the company's voting shares are an important piece to things here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4d023fb18dfd4ed07201165c868ccdc2", "text": "\"You own a fractional share of the company, maybe you should care enough to at least read the proxy statements which explain the pro and con position for each of the issues you are voting on. That doesn't seem like too much to ask. On the other hand, if you are saying that the people who get paid to be knowledgeable about that stuff should just go make the decisions without troubling you with the details, then choose the option to go with their recommendations, which are always clearly indicated on the voting form. However, if you do this, it might make sense to at least do some investigation of who you are voting onto that board. I guess, as mpenrow said, you could just abstain, but I'm not sure how that is any different than just trashing the form. As for the idea that proxy votes are tainted somehow, the one missing piece of that conspiracy is what those people have to gain. Are you implying that your broker who has an interest in you making money off your investments and liking them would fraudulently cast proxy votes for you in a way that would harm the company and your return? Why exactly would they do this? I find your stance on the whole thing a bit confusing though. You seem to have some strong opinions on corporate Governance, but at the same time aren't willing to invest any effort in the one place you have any control over the situation. I'm just sayin.... Update Per the following information from the SEC Website, it looks like the meaning of a proxy vote can vary depending on the mechanics of the specific issue you are voting on. My emphasis added. What do \"\"for,\"\" \"\"against,\"\" \"\"abstain\"\"and \"\"withhold\"\" mean on the proxy card or voter instruction form? Depending on what you are voting on, the proxy card or voting instruction form gives you a choice of voting \"\"for,\"\" \"\"against,\"\" or \"\"abstain,\"\" or \"\"for\"\" or \"\"withhold.\"\" Here is an explanation of the differences: Election of directors: Generally, company bylaws or other corporate documents establish how directors are elected. There are two main types of ways to elect directors: plurality vote and majority vote. A \"\"plurality vote\"\" means that the winning candidate only needs to get more votes than a competing candidate. If a director runs unopposed, he or she only needs one vote to be elected, so an \"\"against\"\" vote is meaningless. Because of this, shareholders have the option to express dissatisfaction with a candidate by indicating that they wish to \"\"withhold\"\" authority to vote their shares in favor of the candidate. A substantial number of \"\"withhold\"\" votes will not prevent a candidate from getting elected, but it can sometimes influence future decisions by the board of directors concerning director nominees. A \"\"majority vote\"\" means that directors are elected only if they receive a majority of the shares voting or present at the meeting. In this case, you have the choice of voting \"\"for\"\" each nominee, \"\"against\"\" each nominee, or you can \"\"abstain\"\" from voting your shares. An \"\"abstain\"\" vote may or may not affect a director's election. Each company must disclose how \"\"abstain\"\" or \"\"withhold\"\" votes affect an election in its proxy statement. This information is often found toward the beginning of the proxy statement under a heading such as \"\"Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal\"\" or \"\"How Your Votes Are Counted.\"\" Proposals other than an election of directors: Matters other than voting on the election of directors, like voting on shareholder proposals, are typically approved by a vote of a majority of the shares voting or present at the meeting. In this situation, you are usually given the choice to vote your shares \"\"for\"\" or \"\"against\"\" a proposal, or to \"\"abstain\"\" from voting on it. Again, the effect of an \"\"abstain\"\" vote may depend on the specific voting rule that applies. The company's proxy statement should again disclose the effect of an abstain vote.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c783ef9f0ca268bb0df24e9258cb74e7", "text": "\"The list of the public companies is available on the regulatory agencies' sites usually (for example, in the US, you can look at SEC filings). Otherwise, you can check the stock exchange listings, which show all the public companies traded on that exchange. The shareholders, on the other hand, are normally not listed and not published. You'll have to ask the company, and it probably won't tell you (and won't even know them all as many shares are held in the \"\"street name\"\" of the broker).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "480c0c63c7be67c322e10fa1df83fa21", "text": "In reality, shareholders have very few rights other than the right to profits and the right to vote on a board. In general, a proxy fight to replace the board is complicated and expensive, so unless the interested parties buy close to 50% of the shares it's unlikely to be successful. Furthermore, a lot of the shares are held by insiders and institutions. I suppose if a large group of shareholders got together and demanded this, the existing directors may listen and give in to avoid unhappy shareholders being a general annoyance. That seems pretty unlikely unless the stake gets large. There's a great episode of NPR Planet Money [board games](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/07/19/538141248/episode-594-board-games) which talks about one man's struggle to get the company to take some action.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2054be436fb48e9b1d7e8b24b853b05c", "text": "That's not what is entirely happening. It's two separate situations. They don't have equal voting and some are able to vote more than once. The two investors want to keep it that way while the rest want to implement an even voting system. The two investors have been asked to drop their lawsuit against the old CEO since he's no longer with the company but it's implied that they will continue to sue him because he still has influence and the ability to elect new board members which he recently added two. Also it's disengrnous to say just the two investors. They are being asked to do this by the shareholders.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "14619bc463724498d6b497feefe972a7", "text": "I'm really unsure what you are trying to tell me. I don't see how knowing CEOs would aid me in forming an opinion on this issue. Your second statement is simply foolish, shares of a company, represent ownership. Therefore shareholders are the owners. These shareholders elect a board, this board acts like a proxy between the managers (CEO's) and the owners (shareholders). This is how every public company operates. The problem that arises is that managers have an incentive to act in their own best interests, not in the interests of shareholders. So to solve this manager compensation is aligned with company performance so that if the shareholders are better off the managers are better off.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
45ed7658cc745002a846fce880d63a0b	Should I invest or repay my debts?	[ { "docid": "021d6284aa14b527c29eec781880ebff", "text": "You didn't mention how much is the interest rate of your debts. It is a very simple rule. If you think you can make more money by investing (the best way you can) in spite of having debts then go ahead and invest. Else, if you donno what you're doing and can't make sure you earn more than what you're paying off for interest then may be you should focus on clearing up the debts first. You can read more about similar topic discussion here Now, that you've presented the interest rate of your loans i.e. 11% which is your average, then I suggest you to clear up the high interest rate loans first i.e. which are above 11% because it is very difficult to make an investment and get returns more than 11% of what you invest. What ever be it, now that you won't be having big events in the coming 5 years, I suggest you to clear up all your loans and stay debt free i.e. tr to become stable and tension free. You know, because you can't run away anywhere with all those loans up on your shoulders, you HAVE to clear them today or tomorrow. So, now that you're free (in the next 5 yrs) and burden less, so why not clear them up today?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86c1bcb98e6af91a34fe1bf92c8b26c3", "text": "Like azam pointed out, fundamentally you need to decide if the money invested elsewhere will grow faster than the Interest you are paying on the loan. In India, the safe returns from Fixed Deposits is around 8-9% currently. Factoring taxes, the real rate of return would be around 6-7%. This is less than what you are paying towards interest. The PPF gives around 9% with Tax break [if there are no other options] and tax free interest, the real return can be as high as 12-14%. There is a limit on how much you can invest in PPF. However this looks higher than your average interest. The stock markets in long term [7 Years] averages give you around 15% returns, but are not predictable year to year. So the suggest from azam is valid, you would need to see what are the high rate of interest loans and if they accept early repayment, you should complete it ASAP. If there are loans that are less than average, say in the range of 7-8%, you can keep it and pay as per schedule.", "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": "cb7b7b210b445ffbc790c136ee3202e0", "text": "This is a very personal situation of course, but if you can afford the repayments then I recommend keeping the house!. A house is a long term investment and one has to live somewhere. You probably didn't buy the house planning to sell it in 5 years so while in the short term you could suffer a loss on paper chances are things will pick up, they have to eventually. For each boom there is a bust, one for one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a58fc7dbe14f82ac3d2856a08f1a856f", "text": "\"Forget, for the moment, which will pay off most over the long term. Consider risk exposure. You've said that you (hypothetically) have \"\"little or no money\"\": that's the deal-breaker. From a risk-management perspective, your investment portfolio would be better off diversified than with 90% of your assets in a house. Consider also the nature of the risk which owning a house exposes you to: Housing prices are generally tied to the state of the economy. If the local economy crashes, not only could you lose your job, but you could lose a good part of the value of your house... and still owe a lot on your loan. (You also might not be able to move as easily if you found a new job somewhere else.) You should almost certainly rent until you're more financially stable and could afford to pay the new mortgage for a year (or more) if you suddenly lost your job. Then you can worry more about maximizing your investments' rate of return.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "368672e7a90b4f3650ca078c1c229c9e", "text": "For the sake of sanity, pay off your debt maybe not all but some part of it. You never know what the monster, the stock market may turn out to be. It may gobble up all your money without belching or it may gift you with a bounty. But if you pay off all your debt and the stock market monster is rewarding everybody else, you may rue your decision. So put some part of it the markets too, but a more safer one would be a good bet. The proportions of money for loan repayment and for investing in markets is your decision, after you evaluate all your future predictions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "be1457dce52fb089a066c59174891798", "text": "\"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "447e36756a611039b1bd682cce45a182", "text": "As others mentioned, the only clear reason to remain in debt is if you can find an investment that yields more than what you're paying to maintain the debt. This can happen if a debt was established during low-rate period and you're in a high-rate period (not what is happening now.) A speculative reason to keep debt is as an inflation bet. If you believe money will shortly lose value, you are better off postponing repayment until the drop occurs. However you're not likely to be able to make these bets successfully. Hope this helps", "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": "ef347593a6b1d1e017e01f2e41d802d5", "text": "It is a lot easier to make money when you are not in debt. If you can sell the apartment, get rid of your existing mortgage and buy the new house outright, that is probably the best course of action.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "605842993bf7c451b0f12c45806e8a78", "text": "First, I would point you to this question: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing With the $50k that you have inherited, you have enough money to pay off all your debt ($40k), purchase a functional used car ($5k), and get a great start on an emergency fund with the rest. There are many who would tell you to wait as long as possible to pay off your student loans and invest the money instead. However, I would pay off the loans right away if I were you. Even if it is low interest right now, it is still a debt that needs to be paid back. Pay it off, and you won't have this debt hanging over your head anymore. Your grandmother has given you an incredible gift. This money can make you completely debt free and put you on a path for success. However, if you aren't careful, you could end up back in debt quickly. Learn how to make a budget, and commit to never spending money that you don't have again.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aec4619a8919b0720ce257baae6dfe10", "text": "You are on the right track with your math, but be wary of your assumptions. If you can borrow money at x% (and can afford to make payments on the debt), and you can get a return of > x% from investing, then you would make more money by keeping the debt and investing your savings. Another way to think of it: by paying off the debt you are getting a guaranteed 5% return because that's the rate you'd have paid if you kept the debt. Be wary of your assumption of getting a 10% return in the S&P 500. Nothing is guaranteed, even over the long term. Actual results may well be less, and you could lose money. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing: why not pay off the higher rate debt at 5% and keep the 3% debt? That's a guaranteed 5% return by paying off the NSLSC loan. And 3% is a pretty low interest rate. If you can afford to make the payments, I see nothing wrong with investing your savings instead of paying off the loan. Make sure you have an emergency fund, too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "181b96c6143eceb3a5d75487435a116c", "text": "\"As Mr. Money Money Mustache once said: IF YOU HAVE CREDIT CARD DEBT, YOU SHOULD FEEL LIKE YOUR HAIR IS ON FIRE Student loan debt is different than credit card debt. Rather than having spent the money on just about anything, it was invested in improving yourself and probably your financial future. This was probably a good decision. However, unlike most credit card debt, if you ever have to file for bankruptcy, your student loans will not be erased. They will follow you forever. Pay your debts off as quickly as you can. While it may be true that \"\"long-term return on the stock market is about 7%\"\", you cannot assume that this will always be the case, especially in the short term. What if you had made this assumption in 2007? To assume that your stocks will beat a 6.4% guaranteed return over the next few years is not really investing. It's gambling.\"", "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": "3bf2007efcb1606b85d40d03de6b5b05", "text": "I think about debt as a good option for capital investments that offer a return. In my opinion, a house and clothes you need for that new job are good things to borrow for. School is ok, depending on the amount. Car is ok, if it's a 3 year loan. The rest is not good. You should try to carry as little debt as possible, but don't let it dominate your life. If faced between the choice of paying ahead on your student loan and blowing $300 on an XBox, you should pay the loan. If the choice is between taking your kid to the zoo and paying the loan, have fun at the zoo.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2bf9265a495665f7f97313f95b46b42f", "text": "\"Investing the money is only wise if the return on the investment outpaces your highest interest debt. Otherwise, you are making less than is going out. Given that you are in your late 50's, High risk investments are probably a poor idea. If you're truly worried about having enough to retire, I would take 15% of that money and put it toward your emergency fund. Then the rest I would use to pay down your highest interest credit line. You are short on funds right now so I would avoid using the HELOC. Your HELOC is available now, but if times get tight, the bank can decide to freeze your credit line. Instead, if you need a line of credit, look into a personal line of credit. The interest rate wont be as good as your HELOC but it's more stable. If you haven't already, I would pickup \"\"The Richest Man in Babylon\"\". Read the lessons in it and see if you can use the tools it provides to tighten your situation up. The lessons mostly apply to people in the first half of life, but they are fundamentals regardless. Good Luck! (Information on the HELOC was stolen from Jasper's answer here... HELOC with no first mortgage (for liquidity--no plans to spend it) )\"", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
d2a8924bfa13fc583f4dc01650c8a967	Home loan transferred to Freddie Mac — What does this mean?	[ { "docid": "5623cd8647a22ac42e1b67e3040e4858", "text": "Lenders may sell your mortgage to other lenders for a fee. For example, your lender might sell your mortgage to the highest bidder who may want to purchase your mortgage by making a one time payment. For your lender that's a quick profit, for the new owner of your mortgage, that's long term returns for a one time fee. For your lender, that is forgoing long term returns for short term gains (and transfer of risk in case you default). (Very similar to how bonds work in a stock exchange!) What does this mean to you? Nothing. You will still keep making payments to your original lender. What does 'transfer of ownership has not been publicly recorded mean'? It means, when you are asked about ownership details regarding your mortgage, and this could be in tax forms or refinancing etc., you would enter your original lender's information and not Freddit Mac's! Pro-tip There are lots of scams based on this. You might receive an official looking letter in mail claiming your loan has been sold and you should start making payments to the new owner. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS! Call your original lender (use the phone number from your loan papers, not mail you received) and verify this information. And if this were to happen, your original lender would always inform you first. And hey, congrats on your new home! :)", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "0aeb0bb4b3bbbee25c09f14be0a80f01", "text": "Even assuming you were reading the balance sheet correctly it means nothing. What banks mostly care about is cash flow. Do they have enough extra money to make the payments on whatever they borrow? I have never had a credit card company ask me about assets--they don't care. They care about income with which to pay the credit card bill. Have a solid record of paying your bills and enough income to pay back what you are trying to borrow and you'll have an excellent credit rating no matter what your net worth. Whether you are one person or a megacorporation makes no difference.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b5295c9c4c242d39e0504e525c95bdbf", "text": "\"The credit and debit terms here is, talking from bank's point of view (shouldn't be a surprise, banks are never known to look at things from the customers' POV ;)). In accounting, a liability (loans, owners capital etc) is a credit balance and asset (cash, buildings and such) is a debit balance. Your account is a liability to the bank (in accounting parlance that is because they owe you every single penny that is there in your account, btw, in literal parlance too if you really make their life harder ;)) So when the bank accepts money from you, they need to increase their asset (cash) which they will debit (higher debit balance for asset means more assets), and at the same time they also have to account for the added liability by \"\"crediting\"\" the deposited money into your account. So when bank says they have credited your account, it means you have more money in your account. Now, if you transfer money from your account to another, or make a payment through your account, your account will be debited and the beneficiary account will be credited(bank's liability towards you reduces) More or less what everyone else said here... but hey, I could also take a swipe at banks ;))\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "300215e28bd985700295a949b4055d8c", "text": "You don't always have a choice. If you RTA, this is about loans that BoA bought from other lenders, or banks they acquired. If there is such a thing as a conventional mortgage contract that cannot be sold to another bank, I have never heard of it. Any bank you borrow from is generally free to re-sell the loan to any other bank. You agree to the contract, not the name on the letterhead.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db66fcbc02aaeae3f5d45af4edbf187c", "text": "\"MBS is a fairly general term \"\"Mortgage Backed Securities\"\" which simply means that the bond is collateralized with mortgages. Pass throughs are a type of MBS that is untranched: all bond holders of the deal are receiving the same interest and principal payments, there is no senior or subordinate class of bonds. Agency passthroughs bond holders receive any principal and interest payments paid by the loans in the pool, minus a slice of the interest payment that pays billing and insurance fees (servicing and guarantee fees, usually a .5% slice of the mortgage interest rate). On agency product (including Ginnies), if a loan defaults it will be bought out of the pool, with the bondholder receiving all of the expected principal and any interest due on the loan. Agency deals with different classes of bonds are usually called REMICs. Passthrough may also be split into principal-only (PO) and interest-only (IO) pieces. There is also a huge forward market in soon-to-be-issued passthroughs called the TBA market. Ginnie Mae has two slightly different programs referred to as Ginnie I and Ginnie II. Ginnie also has commercial and construction loan financial products. Freddie and Fannie have the same type of financial products as Ginnie, but there are differences in the sort of loans that Ginnie has vs the other agencies, as well as subtle minor differences between the contract terms of the securities. Ginnie is also more explicitly guaranteed by the federal government. You may want to look at: http://www.ginniemae.gov/index.asp (especially the \"\"For Investors\"\" and \"\"For Issuers\"\" sections.) Wikipedia's MBS may be more clear than my description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security#Types\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9ad0656b5ebff9bb89342abd2b89beb", "text": "Wrong way round. Transitional arrangements are non-binding guidelines that the lenders can observe if they choose to. The borrower - like your friend - doesn't get to choose whether to use them or not. Your friend obviously can't afford the property, so if you do this, all I can say is congratulations on buying your new house, and I hope you got a deal on the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83b726abb06b3facfd6be7b430d842bc", "text": "Good! The article says it was some kind of collateral protection insurance that customers were signed up for despite it being unrequired for the loan. The accusations is that WF racketeered about 800,000 loans by bundling in this bunk insurance cost as part of the loan structure. I'm glad you're not caught up in it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ceec0eac45ca45706137bdbd5fccca9c", "text": "I believe you may be missing the point here. It appears(and they don't really verify this) that before BofA took over the loan, the homeowners were not using an escrow account. I know this is possible because i had the option of using one or not when i bought my house. So it seems that once BofA took over they automatically created an escrow account and when the normal payments the homeowners were making didn't cover the total monthly balance, they took it out of the payment specifically for the mortgage. So, according to THIS story, its not sensational bullshit. This would be the bank creating an issue. That is, according to the facts that are presented in the article, which may not be the whole story.... Edit- spelling & grammar", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05f65e79d17fa5283838c5212626126e", "text": "so this is a loan for a house? a loan on a house? a new mortgage? you shouldn't just get a loan for the hell of it any time. interests rates are low because the yields on US treasuries have been pushed closer to zero, and thats pretty much that. the risk is on the bank that approves the loan, and not you. (your ability to repay should be truthful, but your payments are smaller because the interest is so low)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "529d8e67a72c88fec71ae95b94989845", "text": "\"The expression \"\"in debt\"\" when talking about a person's financial affairs means that the sum of debit balances on all accounts exceeds the sum of credit balances on all accounts. A mortgage account is not excluded from that. This definition also does not consider whether any of the debt is secured, or ownership of assets (shares, property, chattels, etc). So, someone with a mortgage of one million dollars for a home that is worth two million is in debt by one million dollars, until they they sell the home (for that amount) and pay down the mortgage. That means \"\"in debt\"\" is not necessarily a statement about net worth.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4ebdef47b59f8a0bdd4e4fba0440b5b3", "text": "This is fraud and could lead to jail time. The vast majority of people cannot obtain such loans without collateral and one would have to have a healthy income and good credit to obtain that kind of loan to purchase something secured by a valuable asset, such as a home. Has this been done before? Yes, despite it being the US, you may find this article interesting. Hopefully, you see how the intent of this hypothetical situation is stealing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05c4fab0e8d3da81f656182506986df5", "text": "I work for a mortgage company but one that sells the loans we fund to banks. I've never heard of that risk mitigation incentive (lower rate for auto payments) but I know for a fact you will have a higher interest rate if you choose to pay your taxes and insurance out of your own pocket and not escrow them. I would contact the CFPB instead of an attorney and they will be able to tell you very quickly whether this is an acceptable practice or not.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235844a2d25fb6628b055a1f80b77c6c", "text": "\"Because this question seems like it will stick around, I will flesh out my comments into an actual answer. I apologize if this does not answer your question as-asked, but I believe these are the real issues at stake. For the actual questions you have asked, I have paraphrased and bolded below: Firstly, don't do a real estate transaction without talking to a lawyer at some stage [note: a real estate broker is not a lawyer]. Secondly, as with all transactions with family, get everything in writing. Feelings get hurt when someone mis-remembers a deal and wants the terms to change in the future. Being cold and calculated now, by detailing all money in and out, will save you from losing a brother in the future. \"\"Should my brother give me money as a down payment, and I finance the remainder with the bank?\"\" If the bank is not aware that this is what is happening, this is fraud. Calling something a 'gift' when really it's a payment for part ownership of 'your' house is fraud. There does not seem to be any debate here (though I am not a lawyer). If the bank is aware that this is what is happening, then you might be able to do this. However, it is unlikely that the bank will allow you to take out a mortgage on a house which you will not fully own. By given your brother a share in the future value in the house, the bank might not be able to foreclose on the whole house without fighting the brother on it. Therefore they would want him on the mortgage. The fact that he can't get another mortgage means (a) The banks may be unwilling to allow him to be involved at all, and (b) it becomes even more critical to not commit fraud! You are effectively tricking the bank into thinking that you have the money for a down payment, and also that your brother is not involved! Now, to the actual question at hand - which I answer only for use on other transactions that do not meet the pitfalls listed above: This is an incredibly difficult question - What happens to your relationship with your brother when the value of the house goes down, and he wants to sell, but you want to stay living there? What about when the market changes and one of you feels that you're getting a raw deal? You don't know where the housing market will go. As an investment that's maybe acceptable (because risk forms some of the basis of returns). But with you getting to live there and with him taking only the risk, that risk is maybe unfairly on him. He may not think so today while he's optimistic, but what about tomorrow if the market crashes? Whatever the terms of the agreement are, get them in writing, and preferably get them looked at by a lawyer. Consider all scenarios, like what if one of you wants to sell, does the other have the right to delay, or buy you out. Or what if one if you wants to buy the other out? etc etc etc. There are too many clauses to enumerate here, which is why you need to get a lawyer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2120e469025fbd901c6c37965d30050c", "text": "Do you know how SoFi's business model works? They're usually pretty conservative with their loans and refinancing. But I guess if they were looking to expand into riskier loans then it sounds like they've got some red tape that'd hold them back. Thank you for the explanation, much appreciated.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "63a0b36e5ad147eb3561b4832c43e36d", "text": "\"PMI IS Mortgage insurance. It stands for \"\"Private Mortgage Insurance\"\". This guy is just trying to get you to buy it from him instead of whoever you have it with now. Your lender would always be on the policy since it is an insurance policy they hold (and you pay for) that protects them from you defaulting on the loan. Don't think of it as insurance for you in case you can't pay. If that should happen, your credit would still be trashed, the bank just wouldn't be out the money. You don't really get any benefit at all from it. It is just the way a bank can mitigate the risk of giving out large loans. This is why people are keen to drop it as soon as possible. The whole thing about keeping the house in your estate after you die makes me think he is trying to sell you a different type of insurance called Mortgage Life Insurance. PMI isn't typically about that type of situation. Your estate will go into probate to work out your debts if you die and my understanding is that PMI doesn't usually pay out in that situation. If this is what he is selling, buying such a policy would be on top of your PMI insurance payment, not instead of it. Be forewarned, personal finance experts usually consider mortgage life insurance to be a ripoff. If you want to protect against the risk of your heirs losing the house because they can't make the payments, you are better off with Term Life Insurance. However, don't worry that they will inherit your debt on the house unless they are on the loan. If they don't want the house, they won't be obliged to make payments on it (unless they want to keep it). It won't affect their credit if they just walk away and let the bank have the house after you die unless they are on the note. Here is an article (in two parts) with a pretty good treatment of the issue of choosing your own PMI policy: \"\"Give Buyers Freedom to Choose Mortgage Insurance\"\" Part 1 Part 2\"", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
b1e91d6f7e3c88de30a05388cbe03d27	Is my financial plan for buying a house logically sound	[ { "docid": "fc6af9dfa9b8eac88e2574cf3268fd3d", "text": "\"As a rental, this is not an ideal set of numbers. You manage to show a $255 'gain' but $275 is from payment to principal. So, from the start, you're out $20/wk. This ignores the $170K down payment, which has an opportunity cost, however you calculate it. You can assign the same rate as the mortgage, and it's nearly $10K/yr. Or the rate you feel your choice of stock market or alternate investment would rise. Either way, you can't ignore this money. Your mortgage rate isn't fixed. A 1% rise and it would jump to $1663 ($842/week) Ideally, a rental property is cash positive without counting principal paydown or even the tax refund. It's a risky proposition to buy and count on everything going right. I didn't mean to scare you off with \"\"1%\"\" but you should research the costs of repair and maintenance. Last year my Heat/AC system needed replacement. US$10K. This year, it's time to paint, and replace rotting trim, $7000. In the US we have property tax that can range from 1-2% of the house value. If you don't have this tax, that's great, just please confirm this.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "db30f9ff88078772375651cf85355306", "text": "House as investment is not a good idea. Besides the obvious calculations don't forget the property tax, home maintenance costs and time, insurance costs, etc. There are a lot of hidden drains on the investment value of the house; most especially the time that you have to invest in maintaining it. On the other hand, if you plan on staying in the area, having children, pets or like do home improvements, landscaping, gardening, auto repair, wood/metal shopping then a house might be useful to you. Also consider the housing market where you are. This gets a bit more difficult to calculate but if you have a high-demand rental market then the house might make sense as an investment if you can rent it out for more than your monthly cost (including all of those factors above). But being a landlord is not for everyone. Again more of your time invested into the house, you have to be prepared to go months without renting it, you may have to deal with crazy people that will totally trash your house and threaten you if you complain, and you may need to part with some of the rent to a management company if you need their skills or time. It sounds like you are just not that interested right now. That's fine. Don't rush. Invest your money some other way (i.e.: the stock market). More than likely when you are ready for a house, or to bail your family out of trouble (if that's what you choose to do), you'll have even more assets to do either with.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d1b2f77f6f2746a5125e75319fd7a577", "text": "3 years ago I wrote Student Loans and Your First Mortgage in response to this exact question by a fellow blogger in my state. What I focused on was the way banks qualify you for a loan, a percentage for the housing cost, and a higher number that also comprises all other debt. If the goal is speed-to-purchase, you make minimum payments on the student loan, and save for the $100K downpayment as fast as you can. The question back to you is whether the purchase is your priority, and how debt averse you are. I'd caution, if you work for a company with a matched 401(k), I'd still deposit to the match, but no more. Personal finance is just that, personal. We don't know your entire situation, your current rental expenses vs your total condo cost when you buy. If you are in a location where renting costs far more than your cost of ownership, Ben might change his mind a bit. If the reverse is true, you're living a college student's lifestyle with a room costing $400/mo sharing a house with friends, I'll back off and say to pay the loan and save until you can't tolerate the situation. You'll find there are few situations that have a perfect answer without having all the details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "033272001584b44ca78b60db0b437eab", "text": "\"I think your analysis is very clear, it's a sensible approach, and the numbers sound about right to me. A few other things you might want to think about: Tax In some jurisdictions you can deduct mortgage interest against your income tax. I see from your profile that you're in Texas, but I don't know the exact situation there and I think it's better to keep this answer general anyway. If that's the case for you, then you should re-run your numbers taking that into account. You may also be able to make your investments tax-advantaged, for example if you save them in a retirement account. You'll need to apply the appropriate limits for your specific situation and take an educated guess as to how that might change over the next 30 years. Liquidity The money you're not spending on your mortgage is money that's available to you for other spending or emergencies - i.e. even though your default assumption is to invest it and that's a sensible way to compare with the mortgage, you might still place some extra value on having more free access to it. Overpayments Would you have the option to pay extra on the mortgage? That's another way of \"\"investing\"\" your money that gets you a guaranteed return of the mortgage rate. You might want to consider if you'd want to send some of your excess money that way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44aaaaed94c2fcc169b1218230d3f12f", "text": "Keep in mind, this is a matter of preference, and the answers here are going to give you a look at the choices and the member's view on the positive/negative for each one. My opinion is to put 20% down (to avoid PMI) if the bank will lend you the full 80%. Then, buy the house, move in, and furnish it. Keep track of your spending for 2 years minimum. It's the anti-budget. Not a list of constraints you have for each category of spending, but a rear-view mirror of what you spend. This will help tell you if, in the new house, you are still saving well beyond that 401(k) and other retirement accounts, or dipping into that large reserve. At that point, start to think about where kids fit into your plans. People in million dollar homes tend to have child care that's 3-5x the cost the middle class has. (Disclosure - 10 years ago, our's cost $30K/year). Today, your rate will be about 4%, and federal marginal tax rate of 25%+, meaning a real cost of 3%. Just under the long term inflation rate, 3.2% over the last 100 years. I am 53, and for my childhood right through college, the daily passbook rate was 5%. Long term government debt is also at a record low level. This is the chart for 30 year bonds. I'd also suggest you get an understanding of the long term stock market return. Long term, 10%, but with periods as long as 10 years where the return can be negative. Once you are at that point, 2-3 years in the house, you can look at the pile of cash, and have 3 choices. We are in interesting times right now. For much of my life I'd have said the potential positive return wasn't worth the risk, but then the mortgage rate was well above 6-7%. Very different today.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb90855308bded6bdcea451a5624a0fe", "text": "\"There are a number of reasons I'm in agreement with \"\"A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank.\"\" So, the update to the first comment should be \"\"A paid off house worth $300K, or a house with $150K equity and $275K in the retirement account.\"\" Edit - On reflection, an interesting question, but I wonder how many actually have this choice. When a family budgets for housing, and uses a 25% target, this number isn't much different for rent vs for the mortgage cost. So how, exactly do the numbers work out for a couple trying to save the next 80% of the home cost? A normal qualifying ration allows a house that costs about 3X one's income. A pay-in-full couple might agree to be conservative and drop to 2X. Are they on an austerity plan, saving 20% of their income in addition to paying the rent? Since the money must be invested conservatively, is it keeping up with house prices? After 10 years, inflation would be pushing the house cost up 30% or so, so is this a 12-15 year plan? I'm happy to ignore the tax considerations. But I question the math of the whole process. It would seem there's a point where the mortgage (plus expenses) add up to less than the rent. And I'd suggest that's the point to buy the house.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18200e84958930b5d0301287d46e7338", "text": "\"I would strongly try to influence circumstances so that buying is feasible. That means: Buy something where it is likely that you can resell it at the same price or even higher - or, at the least for significantly more than \"\"total cost of ownership - rent payed elsewhere\"\". For example, if it is in an area where you have good reasons to assume that prices will go up in the future. Or if the object needs refurbishing and you are sure that you can do it yourself. You will, no doubt, sell it later. You will near certainly not live in such a small house for all time. So the question of \"\"whether\"\" you will sell it is moot. So, when you have a potential house to buy, you will have to calculate everything very carefully, with an estimate of how long you will stay. You need to make your calculation as optimistic/pessimistic as you like (this is more a question of your character). Whatever calculation comes out better, wins. It goes without saying that if you miscalculate (for example, overestimating your ability or time to refurbish; forgetting to calculate non-obvious costs of refurbishing; being surprised by hidden damage to the object; misjudging the price development in the area) you run a considerable risk. So, the question of whether you are able to calculate the risks correctly will need to influence the calculation itself (add 20% or whatever risk buffer if you are not sure, etc.). But the potential is for you to have a very good start in the whole financial game of your life. Your house will likely be for a considerable time the biggest single part of costs in your life, and getting that under control from the get-go is a huge benefit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "158a63615addb9a4abf5b13f930e9c11", "text": "It is great that you came up with a plan to own a rental home, free and clear, and also move up in home. It is also really good of you to recognize that curtailing spending has a profound effect on your net worth, many people fail to acknowledge that factoid and prefer to instead blame things outside their control. Good work there. Here are some items of your plan that I have comments on. 11mo by aggressively curtailing elective spending How does your spouse feel about this? They have to be on board, but it is such a short time frame this is very doable. cashing out all corporate stock, This will probably trigger capital gains. You have to be prepared to pay the tax man, but this is a good source of cash for your plan. You also have to have an additional amount that will likely be due next April 15th. redirecting all contributions to my current non-matched R401(k) This is fine as well because of the short time frame. withdrawing the principal from a Roth IRA This I kind of hate. We are so limited in money that we can put into tax favored plans, that taking money out bothers me. Also it is that much more difficult to save in a ROTH because of the sting of taxes. I would not do this, but would favor instead to take a few extra months to make your plan happen. buy home #2 How are you going to have a down payment for home #2? Is your intention to pay off home and save a while, then purchase home #2? I would do anything to avoid PMI. Besides I would take some time to live in a paid for house. Overall I would grade your plan a B. If take a bit longer, and remove the withdrawing from the ROTH, it then becomes an A-. With a good explanation of how you come up with the down payment for house 2, you could easily move to an A+.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289ffa029d75f9233a18c3ccc3b0671f", "text": "\"I recommend reading What's the catch in investing in real estate for rent? and making a list of expenses. You have a known expense, the rent, and the assumption that it will rise a bit each year. If not each year, eventually the landlord will bump it, and on average, the rent should track inflation. The buy side is the complete unknown, especially to us here. The mortgage and taxes are just the beginning. My ongoing issue in the buy/rent debate is that it's easy to buy \"\"too big\"\" or at least far bigger that what you are renting. One extreme - a couple moves from their one bedroom apartment into their purchased 3BR home with far more space than they ever use. No need to paint the full picture of numbers, the house is a money pit, and they live for the house. Other end - Couple already renting a nice sized home, and they buy a similar one. They rent out the two spare bedrooms for 5 years until they have kids and want their privacy back. They bought smart, for less than market price, and from day one, the mortgage was lower than the rent they paid. By year 5, having sent the extra income to pay down the mortgage, they've paid down half the loan. As the kids come along, they refi to a new 30 yr fixed at 3.5%, and the payment is tiny compared to the rest of their budget. Simply put, the ratio of house price to rent for that same house is not a constant. When the ratio is high, it's time to rent. When it swings very low, it's worth considering a purchase. But the decision is never clear until every detail is known. The time may be perfect, and the day after you close, you lose your job, or in a good scenario, get a raise and are relocated. Just because you bought low yesterday, doesn't mean the market will pay you a good price today, it takes time for out-of-whack pricing to come back to normal. A simple question? Maybe. But we first need a lot of details to help you understand what you are considering.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33b302d80d4aec200d913ed4957c9d97", "text": "If your debt will all be less than 25% gross (yes, I see you said take home) you are in great shape. I'd get the car and not worry. The well written mortgage is 20% down, with a housing payment (which of course includes prop tax and insurance, as noted by mhoran, below) under 28% and total debt under 36%. You are well within the limits, not even close. That's great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1707e391b50fb6601344bdb077f3ff93", "text": "I think it's smart. It's the same game, just stiffer regulations, so your lender will ask more from you. Buy if you... If someone has been saving for years and years and still can't put 20% down, I think they're taking a significant risk. Buy something where your mortgage payment is around one week's salary at most. Try to buy only what you can afford to live in if you lost your job and couldn't find work for 3-6 months. You might want to do a 30-yr fixed instead of a 15-yr if you're worried about cash-flow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "186632702891b096cb961029a47ca4d5", "text": "Of course, I know nothing about real estate or owning a home. I would love to hear people's thoughts on why this would or would not be a good idea. Are there any costs I am neglecting? I want the house to be primarily an investment. Is there any reason that it would be a poor investment? I live and work in a college town, but not your college town. You, like many students convinced to buy, are missing a great many costs. There are benefits of course. There's a healthy supply of renters, and you get to live right next to campus. But the stuff next to campus tends to be the oldest, and therefore most repair prone, property around, which is where the 'bad neighborhood' vibe comes from. Futhermore, a lot of the value of your property would be riding on government policy. Defunding unis could involve drastic cuts to their size in the near future, and student loan reform could backfire and become even less available. Even city politics comes into play: when property developers lobby city council to rezone your neighborhood for apartments, you could end up either surrounded with cheaper units or possibly eminent domain'd. I've seen both happen in my college town. If you refuse to sell you could find yourself facing an oddly high number of rental inspections, for example. So on to the general advice: Firstly, real estate in general doesn't reliably increase in value, at best it tends to track inflation. Most of the 'flipping' and such you saw over the past decade was a prolonged bubble, which is slowly and reliably tanking. Beyond that, property taxes, insurance, PMI and repairs need to be factored in, as well as income tax from your renters. And, if you leave the home and continue to rent it out, it's not a owner-occupied property anymore, which is part of the agreement you sign and determines your interest rate. There's also risks. If one of your buddies loses their job, wrecks their car, or loses financial aid, you may find yourself having to eat the loss or evict a good friend. Or if they injure themselves (just for an example: alcohol poisoning), it could land on your homeowners insurance. Or maybe the plumbing breaks and you're out an expensive repair. Finally, there are significant costs to transacting in real estate. You can expect to pay like 5-6 percent of the price of the home to the agents, and various fees to inspections. It will be exceedingly difficult to recoup the cost of that transaction before you graduate. You'll also be anchored into managing this asset when you could be pursuing career opportunities elsewhere in the nation. Take a quick look at three houses you would consider buying and see how long they've been on the market. That's months of your life dealing with this house in a bad neighborhood.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "638bd4fa6dd303bacc352bbf00a7f5bc", "text": "\"Let's start with income $80K. $6,667/mo. The 28/36 rule suggests you can pay up to $1867 for the mortgage payment, and $2400/mo total debt load. Payment on the full $260K is $1337, well within the numbers. The 401(k) loan for $12,500 will cost about $126/mo (I used 4% for 10 years, the limit for the loan to buy a house) but that will also take the mortgage number down a bit. The condo fee is low, and the numbers leave my only concern with the down payment. Have you talked to the bank? Most loans charge PMI if more than 80% loan to value (LTV). An important point here - the 28/36 rule allows for 8% (or more ) to be \"\"other than house debt\"\" so in this case a $533 student loan payment wouldn't have impacted the ability to borrow. When looking for a mortgage, you really want to be free of most debt, but not to the point where you have no down payment. PMI can be expensive when viewed that it's an expense to carry the top 15% or so of the mortgage. Try to avoid it, the idea of a split mortgage, 80% + 15% makes sense, even if the 15% portion is at a higher rate. Let us know what the bank is offering. I like the idea of the roommate, if $700 is reasonable it makes the numbers even better. Does the roommate have access to a lump sum of money? $700*24 is $16,800. Tell him you'll discount the 2yrs rent to $15000 if he gives you it in advance. This is 10% which is a great return with rates so low. To you it's an extra 5% down. By the way, the ratio of mortgage to income isn't fixed. Of the 28%, let's knock off 4% for tax/insurance, so a $100K earner will have $2167/mo for just the mortgage. At 6%, it will fund $361K, at 5%, $404K, at 4.5%, $427K. So, the range varies but is within your 3-5. Your ratio is below the low end, so again, I'd say the concern should be the payments, but the downpayment being so low. By the way, taxes - If I recall correctly, Utah's state income tax is 5%, right? So about $4000 for you. Since the standard deduction on Federal taxes is $5800 this year, you probably don't itemize (unless you donate over $2K/yr, in which case, you do). This means that your mortgage interest and property tax are nearly all deductible. The combined interest and property tax will be about $17K, which in effect, will come off the top of your income. You'll start as if you made $63K or so. Can you live on that?\"", "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": "f18fc365689652e6ace8938a416fef9d", "text": "\"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd525f6bcaa0f7817bf2cd18b8aecb57", "text": "What's going on here is that the variable rate loan is transferring some of the risk from the bank to you. In a reasonable deal taking on risk brings with it reward. It's the same thing as deductibles on insurance--they're transferring some risk to you and thus your expected total cost goes down. Thus the proper evaluation of such deals is whether you can afford the outcome if you draw the short straw. If you feel you can afford the highest payment that can result then the variable rate is a good deal. If you're near your limit then stay with the safe option of the fixed rate. For a house this is easy enough to evaluate--run the calculations assuming the highest payment and see what the debt-to-income ratio is. Note that when we were getting mortgages there was another factor involved: the variable rate loans had a higher initiation cost. Combined with the very low difference between fixed and ARM rates at the time we went fixed but given the rates you quote going variable would have been a no-brainer for us.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
63a695c353796268065fcf3650a4df09	How to reach an apt going against inflation	[ { "docid": "0c4147d5a2bd6edd3b1cc6c2f729528f", "text": "Inflation of the type currently experienced in Argentina is particularly hard to deal with. Also, real estate prices in global cities such as Buenos Aires and even secondary cities have grown significantly. There are no full solutions to this problem, but there are a few things that can really help.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "50473990a1f2b82126d6e9f61a574282", "text": "Inflation protected securities (i-bonds or TIPS). TIPS stands for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities. By very definition, they tend to protect your savings against inflation. They won't beat inflation, but will keep up with it. TIPS or iBonds have two parts. A fixed interest part and a variable interest portion which varies depending upon the current rates. The combined rate would match the inflation rate. They can be bought directly from the treasury (or from a broker or bank who might charge a commission)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8eb29fc32076f8d336f8e79cecafdc86", "text": "There are two industrial sectors with a recent history of raising revenue and profit faster than inflation: education and health care. While there is indeed some political risk, my assumption is these sectors would continue to beat inflation even under a theoretical socialist President Bernie Sanders. There are several such sector funds available from popular low ER mutual fund companies; I don't believe this forum likes specific commercial investment touting so I decline to name specific ones.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af9e3804fe0ba09f7a01b49f444fe670", "text": "\"The classic definition of inflation is \"\"too much money chasing too few goods.\"\" Low rates and QE were intended to help revive a stalled economy, but unfortunately, demand has not risen, but rather, the velocity of money has dropped like a rock. At some point, we will see the economy recover and the excess money in the system will need to be removed to avoid the inflation you suggest may occur. Of course, as rates rise to a more normal level, the price of all debt will adjust. This question may not be on topic for this board, but if we avoid politics, and keep it close to PF, it might remain.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8aca5ab77ad9a7c18b6ceeb4300f23be", "text": "$10k isn't really enough to make enough money to offset the extremely high risks in investing in options in this area. Taking risks is great, but a sure losing proposition isn't a risk -- it's a gamble. You're likely to get wiped out with leveraged options, since you don't have enough money to hedge your bets. Timing is critical... look at the swings in valuation in the stock market between the Bear Sterns and Lehman collapses in 2009. If you were highly leveraged in QQQQ that you bought in June 2009, you would have $0 in November. With $10k, I'd diversify into a mixture of foreign cash (maybe ETFs like FXF, FXC, FXY), emerging markets equities and commodities. Your goal should be to preserve investment value until buying opportunities for depressed assets come around. Higher interest rates that come with inflation will be devastating to the US economy, so if I'm betting on high inflation, I want to wait for a 2009-like buying opportunity. Then you buy depressed non-cyclical equities with easy to predict cash flows like utilities (ConEd), food manufacturers (General Mills), consumer non-durables (P&G) and alcohol/tobacco. If they look solvent, buying commodity ETFs like the new Copper ETFs or interests in physical commodities like copper, timber, oil or other raw materials with intrinsic value are good too. I personally don't like gold for this purpose because it doesn't have alot of industrial utility. Silver is a little better, but copper and oil are things with high intrinsic value that are always needed. As far as leverage goes, proceed with caution. What happens when you get high inflation? High cost of capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "991a3c3f2d868d20ef41153c719b87fe", "text": "Recessions are prolonged by less spending and wages being 'sticky' downward. My currency, the 'wallark', allows a company to pay its workers in it's own scrip instead of dollars which they can use to purchase its goods, thus reducing it's labor costs and allowing prices to fall faster. While scrip in the past purposely devalued to discourage hoarding, the wallark hold's it's purchasing power. The difference is, a worker can only use it to purchase their company's good on the date the wallark was earned or before. In other words, each good is labeled with a date it was put on display for sale, if a worker earns scrip on that same day, they can trade the scrip for that good, or any good that was on the shelves on that day it was earned or before that date. Any good that comes onto market after the date that particular wallark was earned cannot be purchased with that wallark(which is dated), and must be purchased either with dollars or with wallark that was earned on that good's date or after. This incentivizes spending without creating inflation, and allows costs to fall which helps businesses during rough economic times. Please feel free to read it, and comment on my site! Any feedback is welcome!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b47b1fed185fd92a2718eccc810c8dc", "text": "\"So, what's your actual plan/strategy/suggestion to combat this, again? Are you planning on buying physical gold, other precious metals (again, tangible--not paper), and buying & investing in real estate? This isn't a sarcastic question; I want to go down this hypothetical path in the thought experiment a bit further. For example: for a US investor, could part of the strategy be to \"\"move to a state with no state income tax\"\" to preserve as much income as possible in order to invest that income in one of the target categories? Is careful selection of primary residence (real estate) in a location most likely to appreciate part of the strategy? Is moving your investment accounts offshore to a tax haven part of the strategy?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f968ac77c114449dadf53ee74f7830b8", "text": "You can't get there from here. This isn't the right data. Consider the following five-year history: 2%, 16%, 32%, 14%, 1%. That would give a 13% average annual return. Now compare to -37%, 26%, 15%, 2%, 16%. That would give a 4% average annual return. Notice anything about those numbers? Two of them are in both series. This isn't an accident. The first set of five numbers are actual stock market returns from the last five years while the latter five start three years earlier. The critical thing is that five years of returns aren't enough. You'd need to know not just how you can handle a bull market but how you do in a bear market as well. Because there will be bear markets. Also consider whether average annual returns are what you want. Consider what actually happens in the second set of numbers: But if you had had a steady 4% return, you would have had a total return of 21%, not the 8% that would have really happened. The point being that calculating from averages gives misleading results. This gets even worse if you remove money from your principal for living expenses every year. The usual way to compensate for that is to do a 70% stock/30% bond mix (or 75%/25%) with five years of expenses in cash-equivalent savings. With cash-equivalents, you won't even keep up with inflation. The stock/bond mix might give you a 7% return after inflation. So the five years of expenses are more and more problematic as your nest egg shrinks. It's better to live off the interest if you can. You don't know how long you'll live or how the market will do. From there, it's just about how much risk you want to take. A current nest egg of twenty times expenses might be enough, but thirty times would be better. Since the 1970s, the stock market hasn't had a long bad patch relative to inflation. Maybe you could squeak through with ten. But if the 2020s are like the 1970s, you'd be in trouble.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfafcc92da76fa7f7ae4390603830f17", "text": "There is inflation, but it's hidden through various mechanisms. What do you call housing price increases and wage declines? What do you call the fed essentially paying down the inflation with free money and prices still pressuring upwards? I get the sense there is a great underlying pressure for inflation to burst out from the fed's free money pressure chamber. For all our sake, I really hope the pressure chamber holds or I'm totally wrong in the first place.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0339acde124bc7d1ff0f4bbec49f66dc", "text": "\"To begin with, bear in mind that over the time horizon you are talking about, the practical impact of inflation will be quite limited. Inflation for 2017 is forecast at 2.7%, and since you are talking about a bit less than all of 2017, and on average you'll be withdrawing your money halfway through, the overall impact will be <1.3% of your savings. You should consider whether the effort and risk involved in an alternative is worth a few hundred pounds. If you still want to beat inflation, the best suggestion I have is to look at peer-to-peer lending. That comes with some risk, but I think over the course of 1 year, it's quite limited. For example, Zopa is currently offering 3.1% on their \"\"Access\"\" product, and RateSetter are offering 2.9% on the \"\"Everyday\"\" product. Both of these are advertised as instant access, albeit with some caveats. These aren't FSCS-guaranteed bank deposits, and they do come with some risk. Firstly, although both RateSetter and Zopa have a significant level of provision against bad debt, it's always possible that this won't be enough and you'll lose some of your money. I think this is quite unlikely over a one-year time horizon, as there's no sign of trouble yet. Secondly, there's \"\"liquidity\"\" risk. Although the products are advertised as instant access, they are actually backed by longer-duration loans made to people who want to borrow money. For you to be able to cash out, someone else has to be there ready to take your place. Again, this is very likely to be possible in practice, but there's no absolute guarantee.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f36c05d8eff0f82f58f3cdf2cc742d0", "text": "The safest investment in the United States is Treasures. The Federal Reserve just increased the short term rate for the first time in about seven years. But the banks are under no obligation to increase the rate they pay. So you (or rather they) can loan money directly to the United States Government by buying Bills, Notes, or Bonds. To do this you set up an account with Treasury Direct. You print off a form (available at the website) and take the filled out form to the bank. At the bank their identity and citizenship will be verified and the bank will complete the form. The form is then mailed into Treasury Direct. There are at least two investments you can make at Treasury Direct that guarantee a rate of return better than the inflation rate. They are I-series bonds and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). Personally, I prefer the I-series bonds to TIPS. Here is a link to the Treasury Direct website for information on I-series bonds. this link takes you to information on TIPS. Edit: To the best of my understanding, the Federal Reserve has no ability to set the rate for notes and bonds. It is my understanding that they can only directly control the overnight rate. Which is the rate the banks get for parking their money with the Fed overnight. I believe that the rates for longer term instruments are set by the market and are not mandated by the Fed (or anyone else in government). It is only by indirect influence that the Fed tries to change long term rates.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8853208397ad305d6c63eab911edbb7", "text": "You can look at TIPS (which have some inflation protection built in). Generally short term bonds are better than long if you expect rates to rise soon. Other ways that you can protect yourself are to choose higher yield corporate bonds instead of government bonds, or to use foreign bonds. There are plenty of bond funds like Templeton Global or ETFs that offer such features. Find one that will work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c84d0cd8ba4ce0d23663e0591844911", "text": "Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0560dc94d403ac5117bf22eb7e78265", "text": "Inflation is already impacting hard to reach places: Sakhalin, Yakutsk, and Kaliningrad (Russia's small enclave in the middle of Europe). While major metropolitan areas can easily deflect inflation, better distribution networks, major distributors, faster access to bureaucratic machinary, isolated regions are already fealing the impact of the sanctions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d7e6b46352b8e46c514f9e74f02502", "text": "There are several local currency initiatives in the US list here. Most are attempts to normalize a value as a living wage, or encourage local consumption networks. If you are in the catchment region of one of these, see if you can get a grant or loan to get started (if you are willing to buy into the philosophy of the group such as a $10 minimum wage) m", "title": "" }, { "docid": "511d0076eb13439460e7ae3d17d7bec1", "text": "\"Inflation means that the more money you create, the less it has value. To that I say, \"\"Meh.\"\" A funnier way of gaining wealth, which is the ultimate goal to stealing currency, would be to gain a great deal of money (through robbery or other means) then attempt to trigger a deflationary spiral while sitting on the cash. Sure it might be difficult, but I'm pretty sure the key is jacking up Fed interest rates and blowing up money printers.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
78ea4af5952d9b7b9c4cd8373e614935	Accounting Entry for Selling a Covered Call	[ { "docid": "a579327e1a43b14f841a4286b39ac597", "text": "Option contracts typically each represent 100 shares. So the 1 call contract you sold to open (wrote) grants the buyer of that option the right to purchase your 100 shares for $80.00 per share any time before the option expiration date. You were paid a gross amount of $100 (100 shares times $1.00 premium per share) for taking on the obligation to deliver should the option holder choose to exercise. You received credit in your account of $89.22, which ought to be the $100 less any trading commission (~$10?) and miscellaneous fees (regulatory, exchange, etc.) per contract. You did capture premium. However, your covered call write represents an open short position that, until either (a) the option expires worthless, or (b) is exercised, or (c) is bought back to close the position, will continue to show on your account as a liability. Until the open position is somehow closed, the value of both the short option contract and long stock will continue to fluctuate. This is normal.", "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": "b0b2c3803926031441d17b0be5547416", "text": "\"You owe no tax on the option transaction in 2015 in this case. How you ultimately get taxed depends on how you dispose of the position. If it expires, then you will have a short-term capital gain on the option position at expiration. If it is exercised, then the option is \"\"gone\"\" for tax purposes and your basis in the underlying is adjusted. From IRS Publication 550: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. In your case, this will be a long-term capital gain. For completeness, if you buy to cover the option back from the market before expiration or exercise, then it is also a short-term capital gain. Also, keep in mind that this all assumes that this covered call is \"\"qualified\"\" so that it does not count as a straddle. You can find more about that in Pub 550. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2014_publink100010630 All of this is for US tax purposes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca79662e35a8967e8928ef6b4e487cd4", "text": "yes, you are double counting. Your profit is between ($7.25 and $8) OR ($7.75 and $8.50). in other words, you bought the stock at $7.75 and sold at $8.00 and made $0.50 on top. Profit = $8.00-$7.75+$0.50 (of course all this assumes that the stock is at or above $8.00 when the option expires. If it's below, then your profit = market price - $7.75 + $0.50 by the way the statement won't call me away until the stock reaches $8.50 is wrong. They already paid $0.50 for the right to buy the stock at $8.00. If the stock is $8.01 on the day of expiration your options will be executed(automatically i believe).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "afafec3ae79fa797fcb2e00de3988080", "text": "For reporting purposes, I would treat the purchase and sale of gold like a purchase and sale of a stock. The place to do so is Schedule D. (And if it's the wrong form, but you reported it, there is might not be a penalty, whereas there is a penalty for NOT reporting.) The long term gain would be at capital gains rates. The short term gain would be at ordinary income rates. And if you have two coins bought at two different times, you get to choose which one to report (as long as you report the OTHER one when you sell the second coin).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f86a8a4bb3fa8d170e7d2cb5f67b104", "text": "Thanks for your thorough reply. Basically, I found a case study in one of my old finance workbooks from school and am trying to complete it. So it's not entirely complicated in the sense of a full LBO or merger model. That being said, the information that they provide is Year 1 EBITDA for TargetCo and BuyerCo and a Pro-Forma EBITDA for the consolidated company @ Year 1 and Year 4 (expected IPO). I was able to get the Pre-Money and Post-Money values and the Liquidation values (year 4 IPO), as well as the number of shares. I can use EBITDA to get EPS (ebitda/share in this case) for both consolidated and stand-alone @ Year 1, but can only get EPS for consolidated for all other years. Given the information provided. One of the questions I have is do I do anything with my liquidation values for an accretion/dilution analysis or is it all EPS?", "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": "94ddf1032cb45bb5c777b866ae873592", "text": "\"I found your post while searching for this same exact problem. Found the answer on a different forum about a different topic, but what you want is a Cash Flow report. Go to Reports>Income & Expenses>Cash Flow - then in Options, select the asset accounts you'd like to run the report for (\"\"Calle's Checking\"\" or whatever) and the time period. It will show you a list of all the accounts (expense and others) with transactions effecting that asset. You can probably refine this further to show only expenses, but I found it useful to have all of it listed. Not the prettiest report, but it'll get your there.\"", "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": "4bf726bf77ecbdc2e5d41ca4a6984d6a", "text": "\"A 'Call' gives you the right, but not the obligation, to buy a stock at a particular price. The price, called the \"\"strike price\"\" is fixed when you buy the option. Let's run through an example - AAPL trades @ $259. You think it's going up over the next year, and you decide to buy the $280 Jan11 call for $12. Here are the details of this trade. Your cost is $1200 as options are traded on 100 shares each. You start to have the potential to make money only as Apple rises above $280 and the option trades \"\"in the money.\"\" It would take a move to $292 for you to break even, but after that, you are making $100 for each dollar it goes higher. At $300, your $1200 would be worth $2000, for example. A 16% move on the stock and a 67% increase on your money. On the other hand, if the stock doesn't rise enough by January 2011, you lose it all. A couple points here - American options are traded at any time. If the stock goes up next week, your $1200 may be worth $1500 and you can sell. If the option is not \"\"in the money\"\" its value is pure time value. There have been claims made that most options expire worthless. This of course is nonsense, you can see there will always be options with a strike below the price of the stock at expiration and those options are \"\"in the money.\"\" Of course, we don't know what those options were traded at. On the other end of this trade is the option seller. If he owns Apple, the sale is called a \"\"covered call\"\" and he is basically saying he's ok if the stock goes up enough that the buyer will get his shares for that price. For him, he knows that he'll get $292 (the $280, plus the option sale of $12) for a stock that is only $259 today. If the stock stays under $280, he just pocketed $12, 4.6% of the stock value, in just 3 months. This is why call writing can be a decent strategy for some investors. Especially if the market goes down, you can think of it as the investor lowering his cost by that $12. This particular strategy works best in a flat to down market. Of course in a fast rising market, the seller misses out on potentially high gains. (I'll call it quits here, just to say a Put is the mirror image, you have the right to sell a stock at a given price. It's the difference similar to shorting a stock as opposed to buying it.) If you have a follow up question - happy to help. EDIT - Apple closed on Jan 21, 2011 at $326.72, the $280 call would have been worth $46.72 vs the purchase price of $12. Nearly 4X return (A 289% gain) in just over 4 months for a stock move of 26%. This is the leverage you can have with options. Any stock could just as easily trade flat to down, and the entire option premium, lost.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e215380be65e1d229d6662ffc05ffa45", "text": "A bullish (or 'long') call spread is actually two separate option trades. The A/B notation is, respectively, the strike price of each trade. The first 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to B, is the sale of a call option at a strike price of B (in this case $165). The proceeds from this sale, after transaction costs, are generally used to offset the cost of the second 'leg'. The second 'leg' of the strategy, corresponding to A, is the purchase of a call option at a strike price of A (in this case $145). Now, the important part: the payoff. You can visualize it as so. This is where it gets a teeny bit math-y. Below, P is the profit of the strategy, K1 is the strike price of the long call, K2 is the strike price of the short call, T1 is the premium paid for the long call option at the time of purchase, T2 is the premium received for the short call at the time of sale, and S is the current price of the stock. For simplicity's sake, we will assume that your position quantity is a single option contract and transaction costs are zero (which they are not). P = (T2 - max(0, S - K2)) + (max(0, S - K1) - T1) Concretely, let's plug in the strikes of the strategy Nathan proposes, and current prices (which I pulled from the screen). You have: P = (1.85 - max(0, 142.50 - 165)) - (max(0, 142.50 - 145)) = -$7.80 If the stock goes to $150, the payoff is -$2.80, which isn't quite break even -- but it may have been at the time he was speaking on TV. If the stock goes to $165, the payoff is $12.20. Please do not neglect the cost of the trades! Trading options can be pretty expensive depending on the broker. Had I done this trade (quantity 1) at many popular brokers, I still would've been net negative PnL even if NFLX went to >= $165.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c471849f109297f8aa0872aaa94b4cd", "text": "I am not an accountant, but I have a light accounting background, despite being primarily an engineer. I also have a tiny schedule C business which has both better and worse years. I am also in the United States and pay US taxes. I assume you are referring to the US Form 1040 tax return, with the attached Schedule C. However little I know about US taxes, I know nothing about foreign taxes. You are a cash-basis taxpayer, so the transactions that happen in each tax year are based on the cash paid and cash received in that year. You were paid last year, you computed your schedule C based on last year's actual transactions, and you paid taxes on that income. You can not recompute last years schedule C based on the warranty claim. You might want to switch to an accrual accounting method, where you can book allowances for warranty claims. It is more complex, and if your business is spotty and low volume, it may be more trouble than it is worth. At this point, you have two months to look for ways to shift expenses into next year or being income into this year, both of which help offset this loss. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on. This article on LegalZoom (link here) discusses how to apply a significant net operating loss (NOL) in this year to the previous two years, and potentially carry it forward to the next two years. This does involve filing amended returns for the prior two years, showing this year's NOL. For this to be relevant, your schedule C loss this year must exceed your other W2 and self-employment income this year, with other tests also applied. Perhaps a really aggressive accountant would advise otherwise (and remember, I am not an accountant), but I would take the lumps and move on.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7224cc805b4b4d61f2d3ff03be518afa", "text": "\"RoR for options you bought is fairly easy: (Current Value-Initial Cost)/Initial Cost gives you the actual return. If you want the rate of return, you need to annualize that number: You divide the return you got above by the number of days the investment was in place, and then multiply that number by the number of days in a year. (365 if you're using calendar days, about 255 if you're using trading days.) RoR for options you sold is much more complex: The problem is that RoR is basically calculating the size of your return relative to the capital it tied up to earn it. That's simple when you bought something; the capital tied up is the money you put up. It's more complex on a position like a short option, where the specific transaction in question generates cash when it's put on. The correct way to deal with this is to A) Bundle your strategy (options, stock and collateral) into one RoR where appropriate, and B) include any needed collateral to support the short option in the calculation. So, if you sell a \"\"cash-secured\"\" put, where you have to post the money that you'd need to take delivery of the shares if they were put to you, the initial cost is the total amount you'd need to put the trade on: in this case, it's the cash amount, less the premium you collected for selling the put. That's just one example. But the approach holds more broadly: if you're using covered calls, your original cost is the cost of the stock less the premium generated by the sale of the call.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c10c959c65c599fb50b396f3f0c03689", "text": "\"If your shares get called on stock at a price below what you paid for the stock, your gain or loss depends on what premium you got for the options you sold. \"\"can I deliver shares at that assigned strike using margin or additional capital if I have it? Can the broker just take care of it and let me collect the time premium? \"\" You don't need margin or any cash because you already hold the shares. A covered call means your cash requirements are 'covered'. So they'll just buy your shares at the strike price of $50. And you still get to keep the premium (which you should have gotten when you sold the covered call). You only need cash or margin when you've sold an uncovered call or put.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25ae5486b8a65b1b44e753ea7aba523b", "text": "\"Summary of accepted answer: Your \"\"loss\"\" will not count as a loss (to the IRS). Which means no tax deduction for a \"\"short-term capital loss\"\" (on that sale). Instead, the IRS simply pretends like you had paid less for the stock to begin with.\"", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
e5bf62b493608e190fc20f331717c98e	Should I cash out my Roth IRA to pay my mother's property tax debt, to avoid foreclosure on her home?	[ { "docid": "277e367eff341a4c9a21ab6eea8bd118", "text": "@foreverBroke - Ok, here are the questions - Is mom's house paid for in full? If there's any mortgage, is it current? If not, what are the numbers? Is it underwater, i.e. owe more that it's worth? Will the tax department talk to you and negotiate? Maybe let you make payments over time? If you have that kind of cash flow, the slower payment may keep you from killing your savings. We don't know your age. I do know that the early years savings, often around the first 8-12 years, are the funds that turn into half your final retirement savings due to compounding. Obviously, this a tough time emotionally, what I don't want is for you to make a financial move that is a temporary fix. Not knowing the rest of the story limits my answer. If my mom needed my help I'd want to understand the whole picture. Not that I'm a fan, but have you considered a reverse mortgage? It may be a way to keep the house but give up the equity, or some of it, on her moving out or passing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d6130885a18b321ac8e637dc387bf10", "text": "You're crazy to cash out your Roth or take on 401k loan, as that is addressing a short-term problem without doing anything about the longer-term issue. Just don't do it. Through no fault of her own, your mom is insolvent. It happens to people all of the time, and the solution is chapter 7 bankruptcy. The only thing that I would do with my money in this situation is help her with bankruptcy attorney fees if needed, and maybe bid on it at auction, if the house in in good shape.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7610a43443e148a699c9b0643eb86a56", "text": "\"First, I'm really sorry to hear about your mother. My wife was recently diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer, so I know that there is a possibility that your mind is in \"\"survival\"\" mode, trying to preserve as much as you can in the way of things that you can effect (that's how I've been feeling recently). Having a loved one with cancer is really tough because there is absolutely, positively nothing tangible that you can do to change the fact that they have cancer. You will have to ask yourself some questions: How important is it that your mom can stay in her house? Moving could add some unneeded stress. How may years have you been contributing to your 401k? If you have 30 years left, you could have enough time to recover some of your losses from reducing the amount of money you have given up for your mom. Will your mom be able to pay you back for paying the taxes over time, or would this be a 'gift'? Have her doctors told her that she \"\"... has N months left...\"\"? What is the next step after you are able to pay her taxes and save the house? Someone close to me recently told me that \"\"There is no point in trying to save for someone for the future, if you can't sustain them until they get to that future. What will happen to your mom if she loses her house? Will it make it easier or harder for her to recover if she can stay? To paraphrase someone famous, \"\"you can't take a loan out for your retirement, but you could take a loan out for this event.\"\" At any rate, good luck. My thoughts are with you and your mother.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc68b250e142e0a89cd68aa80106d854", "text": "If it turns out that you do want to help pay the tax bill (after answering all the questions above), I say cash out those funds. You are apparently very young with a long work life ahead (lucky you). Step aside from the actual money part of it for a moment. What does your Mom want? What do you really want to do about this? Is it from love that you want to help but are afraid it's a bad financial decision? Or is it from a feeling of duty and you deep down don't really want to spend your savings on Mom's tax bill. - If you really do want to help and you have the wherewithall to do so, then do it. Otherwise don't. You can recover financially. - I myself have had my retirement savings go to nearly zero 3 times. The first time I recovered pretty easily. The second time, not so easily. I'm just starting on the recovery path for the 3rd time at age 58 and I highly doubt I ever will recover this time. I didn't cash out on purpose but the stock market was not friendly. - My main point is to figure out truly what you want.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "18709a398b2b7066a205463a07181a42", "text": "There's a couple issues to consider: When you sell your primary home, the IRS gives you a $500k exemption (married, filing jointly) on gain. If you decide not to sell your current house now, and you subsequently fall outside the ownership/use tests, then you may owe taxes on any gains when you sell the house. Rather than being concerned about your net debt, you should be concerned about your monthly debt payments. Generally speaking, you cannot have debt payments of more than 36% of your monthly income. If you can secure a renter for your current property, then you may be able to reach this ratio for your next (third) property. Also, only 75% of your expected monthly rental income is considered for calculating your 36% number. (This is not an exhaustive list of risks you expose yourself to). The largest risk is if you or your spouse find yourself without income (e.g. lost job, accident/injury, no renter), then you may be hurting to make your monthly debt payments. You will need to be confident that you can pay all your debts. A good rule that I hear is having the ability to pay 6 months worth of debt. This may not necessarily mean having 6 months worth of cash on hand, but access to that money through personal lines of credit, borrowing against assets, selling stocks/investments, etc. You also want to make sure that your insurance policies fully cover you in the event that a tenant sues you, damages property, etc. You also don't want to face a situation where you are sued because of discrimination. Hiring a property management company to take care of these things may be a good peace-of-mind.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0940efd2560a722fb56690133434604", "text": "\"It's not so much a matter of your age as it is a matter of what your current tax rate is vs. what your tax rate will be when you take out the money. As long as your current tax rate is lower than what you anticipate it will be when you withdraw the money, it makes sense to pay the tax now. Of course you can't know for certain what your tax rate will be when you take out your money, but the answer for most people is going to be \"\"higher than it is now\"\". Some reasons why: As you age you start to lose deductions (home mortgage gets paid off, kids grow up and move out). You likely won't gain any new deductions that would lower your tax rate as you age, you'll only lose them. Tax rates now are historically low, and budget deficits are high. That means that higher tax rates are almost certainly coming. So unless your circumstances are very unusual, I would pretty much always recommend saving after-tax dollars. Now that I've said that, I'll throw a small wrench into that plan - when you save with a Roth IRA, you are paying taxes today with the anticipation that you won't have to pay taxes later. But this may not necessarily be the case: The government could decide to tax Roth IRA gains in the future (would be a very unpopular move, but if they decided to do it, who's to stop them?) The government could change the tax system by lowering income tax rates and creating a VAT, or instituting something like the \"\"Flat Tax\"\". Your Roth money is exempt from income tax, but not from a VAT or national sales tax. So, you also need to consider the possibility of those things happening and how that would affect you. Ten years ago nobody would have dreamed of the US having a VAT, but now it looks more and more possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9446134c4389c8289474a7910980a74b", "text": "Then at the end, if you decide to cash in your house, you can roll the proceeds into a fancier house to avoid paying taxes on your profit. The problem is that the book was written in 1989. That comment is no longer true; that part of the tax law changed in the 1990's. Also in 1989 the maximum amount that person could put in an IRA was $2,000 and hadn't been raised for almost a decade and wouldn't be raised for another decade. Roth accounts didn't exist; nor did HSA's or 529's. Most people didn't have a 401K. You are asking to compare what options we have today compared to what was available in the late 1980's. For me except, for the years 2001-2005 and 2010-2015, the period from 1988 until now has had flat real estate values. Still the current values haven't returned to the peak in 2005. The score is 11 great years, 17 flat or negative. I know many people who during the 1990's had a zero return on their real estate.", "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": "d0bcfb2c0730687b9984f9bc1633952a", "text": "There are two methods of doing this Pulling out the money and paying the penalty if any, and going on your way. Having the Roth IRA own the business, and being an employee. If you go with the second choice, you should read more about it on this question.", "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": "039cc579a85a6ad914607b922112d2e7", "text": "A point that hasn't been mentioned is whether paying down the mortgage sooner will get you out of unnecessary additional costs, such as PMI or a lender's requirement that you carry flood insurance on the outstanding mortgage balance, rather than the actual value/replacement cost of the structures. (My personal bugbear: house worth about $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.) May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money.", "title": "" }, { "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": "23a5c0093ece0aabf8dd3a31cad1c119", "text": "\"The bottom line is you broke the law. While this is pretty much victimless, it is none the less a violation of the law and should be avoided in the future. I would have not agreed to this as a parent and it sets a bad precedent. As such I would avoid trading and move the money into cash until you turn 18. Once you turn 18 you should transfer the money into an account of your own. From there you may proceed as you wish. As far as paying taxes, of course you need to pay them. Your mother did this as a favor to you and by doing such you caused her tax bill to rise. As a gesture of goodwill you should at least provide her with half of the profits, not the 15% you propose. Fifteen percent would be the \"\"I am an ungrateful son\"\" minimum, and I would seriously consider giving all of the profits to her.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6ea9d616b30c9973b74157e9df43187", "text": "Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things, even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "504db960177f3094e6a274c3880f6531", "text": "The other thing that you may or may not be considering is the fact that when she moves or otherwise ceases to live in that condo, you could then rent the unit out to others at the inflation adjusted rent price for the area. You could continue to build equity in the property for a fraction of the cost, and it would continue to be a tax write-off once your mother is not living there. While you have more maintenance and repairs cost when renters live there (typically, anyway), if inflation continues to carry on at about 4-5%, then you would be potentially renting the unit out at between $2,500 and $2,850 by the 10th year from now. Obviously, there are other considerations to be made as well, but those are some additional factors that don't seem to have been addressed in any of the above comments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2514a39fecbdb5edb8a2ca787065cc4c", "text": "Since this is the reasoning: I don't want to bother with micropayments, and harassing her for monthly payments. You must do one the following: Provide the money to your mom as a loan (i.e.: with a note and interest) payable when the full repayment of the loan to the bank is done (i.e.: balloon note). The terms of the note should be that the money to be used as collateral for the secured loan from the bank. Provide the money to your mom directly. In this case you have to pay gift tax on $7K (above the 13K exemption limit). Since you want the money back - you'll probably want the option #1. Your interest rate should be above a certain level to avoid reclassifying it as a gift by the IRS (your tax adviser can help you with that). Your mom will pay interest to the bank on the secured loan, and to you on the collateral (unless you wave it, subject to gift tax, again - talk to the tax adviser). You will only need to harass your mom about the balloon payment in the end. This is not a tax or legal advice. Talk to your tax adviser and a legal counsel about the details and additional options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f94f31b43ce48120c2a0c01b820a93c", "text": "\"Obviously you have done well financially in order to be able to purchase a condo for cash, presumably, without risk of your other obligations. To put things in perspective, we are probably talking about less than $5,000 in tax savings. If she is on the title then she is a co-owner. Are you okay with that? You would essentially be giving this child a 50% stake in a property without compensation. Will your other children be okay with it? As your question stated you would prefer to not have her as an owner. However, is it better to not have her as an owner, So I would buy the condo without her on the title and just pay the extra $100 per month in property tax. It is probably \"\"small potatoes\"\" in comparison to your net worth. I would also only charge her at most your cost of carrying the property as rent. While you will create income all of it (and probably more) could be written off as costs. There should be no income tax burden created from this situation. Your accountant can help with any paperwork that needs to be filed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4a8bd91a31ca04c4af230c948f1b6a41", "text": "I think you're missing several key issues here. First for the facts: IRA contributions are $5500 a year maximum (currently, it changes with inflation), i.e.: you cannot deposit $10K in an IRA account in a single year. IRA withdrawals can only be made if you have something liquid in the IRA. You cannot withdraw from Lending Club IRA unless you manage to sell the notes currently held by you there. Roth IRA is funded with after-tax money, and you can withdraw your deposits in Roth IRA any time for any reason. No 10K limit there, only limited by what you deposited. However the main thing you're missing is this: You can withdraw up to $10K from your IRA for first home purchase without penalty. Pay attention: not without tax but without penalty. So what is the point in depositing $10k into IRA just to withdraw it the next year?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4859371019fb658e3329ef6ae84522fb", "text": "\"the mortgage interest deduction alone couldn't make this work, but if you realize less income by living off the mortgage funds, then it could definitely reduce your taxes by much more than the cost of the mortgage interest. particularly, if you are waiting for some future cut-off date (e.g. turning 59.5 and getting access to roth funds, turning 70 and getting social security, simply doing a roth conversion with strategic recharacterization at age 40 and waiting 5 years to get the money out penalty-free, etc.). and that future date could be quite far off if you only use a small fraction of the total mortgage each year. plus, it is fairly reasonable to assume that equity market returns will outpace mortgage rates, especially if you are \"\"rich\"\" and don't need to worry about living on the street even if the market hits unprecedented lows. while i find most financial advisers to be incompetent (most people really...), i wouldn't write this guy off, just because he left out the specific details that made the strategy work for one particular client.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4f1b7930ec2b8df338dca6f5d9477e53	What is needed to be a “broker”?	[ { "docid": "14117e82a174430358141e8f5bc52d22", "text": "You must understand that: So, if you -- the prospective buyer -- are in Waukegan, do you take the train all the way to New York City just to buy 100 shares of stock? No. That would be absurdly expensive. So, you hire an agent in NYC who will broker a deal for you in the exchange. Fast forward 100 years, to the time when instant communications is available. Why do we now still need brokerages, when the Exchanges could set up web sites and let you do the trading? The answer is that the Exchanges don't want to have to develop the accounting systems to manage the transactions of hundreds of thousands of small traders, when existing brokerage firms already have those computerized processes in place and are opening their own web sites. Thus, in 2017 we have brokerage firms because of history.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6590ecc6b4a69571c3a81eb2aee1eb8d", "text": "For the lenders to sell their positions they need buyers on the other side. For a large brokerage that means they should always be able to find another lender. For many contracts the client may have no idea they are a lender as lending is part of their agreement with the broker", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39cd5f6296d8871d6cd2d2fbb1e9cf07", "text": "I strongly suggest personal referral. Ask all of your friends/family/neighbors/co-workers/dog-sitter what they think of their brokers until you find someone who loves his broker. As for transferring assets, I've found it to be quite easy. It's in the new broker's best interest to get those assets, so he should be more than willing to help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f5136cd57134e138329a70f8ff2f30d7", "text": "\"To trade stocks in India, you need a copy of your pan card, address proof(passport or driving license/electricity bill), income tax return (if you are trading futures & options and currencies), and a cancelled cheque from the bank. You will also need to sign across your recent photographs, and require various other forms from a brokerage house which need to be signed in the brokers presence. If your stock broker trusts you, and you have all these documents, then you CAN open a DEMAT account in India by signing and sending him all these documents. Otherwise you CANNOT, as every single form states that \"\"this particular document was signed in my presence\"\", and the stock broker needs to sign under that clause. Chances are, if you live abroad, no broker will ever trust you with any kind of margin, and therefore cannot make profits from you, so they will not agree to open your account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b225057ac5a2daf8508875ece3977755", "text": "\"For a job doing that kind of stuff, what is PREFERRED is 4 year undergrad at ivy league school + 2 year MBA at ivy league school, and then several more years of experience, which you can sort of get by interning while in school this will of course saddle you with debt, which is counterintuitive to your plans basically, the easy way up is percentage based compensation. without knowing the right people, you will get a piss poor salary regardless of what you do, in the beginning. so portfolio managers earn money by percentage based fees, and can manage millions and billions. real estate agents can earn money by percentage based commissions if they close a property and other business venture/owners can do the same thing. the problem with \"\"how to trade\"\" books is that they are outdated by the time they are published. so you should just stick with literature that teaches a fundamental knowledge of the products you want to trade/make money from. ultimately regardless of how you get/earn your initial capital, you will still need to be an individual investor to grow your own capital. this has nothing to do with being a portfolio manager, even highly paid individuals on wall street are in debt to lavish expenditures and have zero capital for their own investments. hope this helps, you really need to be thinking in a certain way to just quickly deduce good ideas from bad ideas\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b5cb58c5f2d201684accde84c22a384", "text": "I would suggest equity research, or as mentioned, consulting. You could go into IB. Your main hindrance is your age, how long has it been since you finished your PhD? Equity Research: you will analyze companies, on an individual and micro basis, and provide macro point of views on the industry etc. Sales/Trading: you will not get a job in trading, sales...maybe, if you get a bank large enough that has a healthcare/industrial chemicals sales positions, but this is a job that requires you to be able to sell your bank's point of view to large, very sophisticated clients, and provide them with better ideas than other sales guys, so that they will trade with your bank...can you learn finance and the industry fast enough? You would be better off working in a buy side shop (there are tons in boston) IB: never met anyone that likes ib. depends on the bank but even mid market small banks it is 80hr weeks on avg. bulge bracket its 100. but you would likely start as an associate, (if at all) so that would go down really fast, (3-5 yrs to vp) If you went to a top tier school, find alum from your school that work at banks and talk to them first, a 30 min conversation with anyone is incredibly useful. Just ask them how to get in. Also make sure you know all the capital markets firms in your area, know what all the fields are from a basic level (read the shit on wallstreetoasis etc) so that you dont waste time when talking to people. You will likely need a CFA level 1 to get any traction, unless you can find some people that are willing to pull for you, which you will find is actually more simple than it seems - people love helping their alma matter, and every firm is always looking for smart people. anyways, sign up for the december 2012 cfa exam, and download/buy the schweser notes (don't read the actual books) this will be a great refresher about finance and economics even if you don't end up switching careers. actual answers to your questions 1) yes 2) start as an associate in ib, spend 3 years doing bs, and workin average 90hrs a week, either quit of become vp and start selling work vs doing it 3) ib: immediate sales/trading: immediate, buy side: varies on the firm, size, performance, could be immediate, could be the year after, or you could get fired after 3 months because your phd isnt as useful as they thought it was. 4) mentioned above...a few years, its managable, suck it up 5) no sorry goodluck", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b71771068ff055f2db7392431cc4df54", "text": "Yeah. I'm in my junior year as a political science major but it's not holding my interest and to be honest, I hate it. I've always loved watching stocks and businesses and kept a close eye on financial news. I was just too blind to see that I could get an actual job doing that kind of stuff. I don't care how long it take to get there, as long as I get there. So maybe finance and stats? I was told that there isn't a real specific degree needed to be a prop trader, but some degrees help more than others.", "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": "5a0554db470751e8c3c64cc9e5595b73", "text": "It would be tough to make that move. The traders at my work look down on the settlements desk, which is wrong because they do great work and without them we wouldn't be able to have a viable business. so thank you for your work! but to answer your question I would suggest making friends with the traders, joke around, find out where they go for drinks and just show up! be outgoing. make friends with them and mention you'd like a shot at it at some point.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9d332653860a7508927301669b5da3c8", "text": "You don't have to use an agent (broker, as you call it), but it is strongly advised. In some counties lawyers are required, in some not. Check your local requirements. Similarly the escrow companies that usually deal with recording and disbursing of money. You will probably not be able to get a title insurance without using an escrow service (I'm guessing here, but it makes sense to me). You will not be able to secure financing through a bank or a mortgage broker without an escrow company, and it might be hard without an agent. Agents required by law to know all the details of the process, and they can guide you through what to do and what to look into. They have experience reading and understanding the inspection reports, they know what to demand from the seller (disclosures, information, etc), they know how and from where to get the HOA docs and disclosures, and can help you negotiate the price knowing the market information (comparable sales, comparable listings, list vs sales statistics, etc). It is hard to do all that alone, but if you do - you should definitely get a discount over the market price of the property of about 5% (the agents' fees are up to 5% mostly). I bought several properties in California and in other states, and I wouldn't do it without an agent on my side. But if you trust the other side entirely and willing to take the risk of missing a step and having problems later with title, mortgage, insurance or resale, then you can definitely save some money and do it without an agent, and there are people doing that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e0d9dbc09105ab8b27d8604bfd88f35", "text": "Off the top of my head I can think of 10 prop shops in Chicago that don't require any sort of certifications. Most those certification requirements are there only when you are managing outside investor money. I was under the impression you are just trading the firm's capital, not outside investor capital, which is why I asked (which, to me, is the definition of a prop shop.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78ae8d2e3a6fd1e9b448c0e6d931e615", "text": "thanks for the advice, I still have few weeks before my master course starts and would like to do more reading regarding trading, any books that you would recommend ? Also I always assume that modelling skill is not that important in sales and trading, is my assumption correct ? Modelling is probably one of my weak skills but if it is needed I would like to work further on it thank you", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b4959b41f04be20d9f8bcd7123e0c8b", "text": "Most big commercial brokerage houses are always hiring and more often than not you will be able to at least score an interview to work in their research/marketing department. Once in the door, it would be much easier to network from the inside as you get to know brokers and their teams. Companies like CBRE, HFF, Marcus & Millichap, JLL, Berkadia, & Cushman & Wakefield would all be good places to look. The fact you have some hospitality management experience is a plus. These company's are hungry for talent that show initiative and interest in the field. Lead with your strengths.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99c930926902e10d8b135a90ddfbcc9a", "text": "THANK YOU so much! That is exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately I'm goign to be really busy for 7 days but I'd love to tear through some of this material and ask you some questions if you don't mind. What do you do for a living now? Still in real estate? Did you go toward the brokerage side or are you still consulting? What's the atmosphere/day-to-day like?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "87f21455d6e774be133fd370a9b37474", "text": "\"Think about it this way: prop desks wouldn't exist if trading didn't work. Part of trading is adapting. That includes algos, manipulation, housing crashes, etc. On a practical side, you have to find a way to make money or else you won't last long. I have heard that it takes longer for new traders to be protifable, but that's second/third hand. Personally, my first few years were tough, but I still think it's better to try to achieve something and fail than to be content in mediocrity. Despite wanting to quit a couple times and thinking, \"\"I should be doing better\"\", I stuck through it and it's worked out pretty well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5e926b3fac533119204833cd6bc4f96a", "text": "\"I'm posting this because I think I can do a better job of explaining and detailing everything from start to stop. :) A \"\"broker\"\" is just someone who connect buyers and sellers - a middleman of sorts who is easy to deal with. There are many kinds of brokers; the ones you'll most commonly hear about these days are \"\"mortgage broker\"\" (for arranging home loans) and \"\"stockbroker\"\". The stockbroker helps you buy and sell stock. The stockbroker has a connection to one or more stock exchanges (e.g. Nasdaq, NYSE) and will submit your orders to them in order to fulfill it. This way Nasdaq and NYSE don't have to be in the business of managing millions of customer accounts (and submitting tax information about those accounts to the government and what-not) - they just manage relationships with brokerages, which is much easier for them. To invest in a stock, you will need to: In this day and age, most brokers that you care about will be easily accessed via the Internet, the applications will be available on the Internet, and the trading interface will be over the Internet. There may also be paper and/or telephone interfaces to the brokerage, but the Internet interface will work better. Be aware that post-IPO social media stock is risky; don't invest any money if you're not prepared for the possibility of losing every penny of it. Also, don't forget that a variety of alternative things exist that you can buy from a broker, such as an S&P 500 index fund or exchange-traded corporate bond fund; these will earn you some reward over time with significantly less risk. If you do not already have similar holdings through a retirement plan, you should consider purchasing some of these sooner or later.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
07f5e4a0c29ee6c85ab20d596132234b	If I'm cash-flow negative, should I dollar-cost-average the money from my bonus over the entire year?	[ { "docid": "6263bcb569ac81cf55099b6957a8bc54", "text": "\"Essentially, your question is \"\"lump sum vs DCA\"\" and your tags reflect that. In the long run, lump sum, say a Jan 2 deposit each year, will beat DCA by about 1/2 the average annual market return. $12,000 will see a 10% return, vs, $1,000/month over the year seeing 6%. What hurts is when the market tanks in the first half of the year and you think DCA would have helped. This is a 'feeling' issue, not a math problem. But. By the time you have $100K invested, the difference of DCA vs lump sum with new money fades, as new deposits are small compared to the funds invested. By then, you need to know your target allocation and deposit to keep that allocation with new money.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0aeeee908b0718dd8905df1decf1431b", "text": "You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "dba80ff472f390f5f0c726aae6bb982c", "text": "Yes, I have done this and did not feel a change in cash flow - but I didn't do it a the age of 23. I did it at a time when it was comfortable to do so. I should have done it sooner and I strongly encourage you to do so. Another consideration: Is your companies program a good one? if it is not among the best at providing good funds with low fees then you should consider only putting 6% into your employer account to get the match. Above that dollar amount start your own ROTH IRA at the brokerage of your choice and invest the rest there. The fee difference can be considerable amounting to theoretically much higher returns over a long time period. If you choose to do the max , You would not want to max out before the end of the year. Calculate your deferral very carefully to make sure you at least put in 6% deferral on every paycheck to the end of the year. Otherwise you may miss out on your company match. It is wise to consider a ROTH but it is extremely tough to know if it will be good for you or not. It all depends on what kind of taxes (payroll, VAT, etc) you pay now and what you will pay in the future. On the other hand the potential for tax-free capital accumulation is very nice so it seems you should trend toward Roth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6f36feca2812f61fd959f5089dbcb7e", "text": "This is the same as any case where income is variable. How do you deal with the months where expected cash flows are lower than projected? When I got married, my wife was in the habit of allocating money to be spent in the current month from income accrued during the previous month. This is slightly complicated because we account for taxes (and benefit expenses) withheld in the current months' paychecks as current expenses, but we allocate the gross income from that check to the following month for spending. The benefit of spending only money made during the previous month is that income shocks are less shocking. I was working for a start-up and they missed payroll that normally arrived on the first of the month. Most of my co-workers were calling the bank in a panic to avoid over-draft fees with their mortgage payments, but my mortgage payment was already covered. Similarly, when the same start-up had a reduction in force on the first day of a new quarter, I didn't have to pull any money from savings during the 3 weeks I was unemployed. In the end, you're going to have to allocate money to the budget based on the actual income--which is lower than your expectations. What part of the budget should fairly be reduced is a question you and your wife will have to figure out.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a5f2fc0186a9439970d88423060556b", "text": "I think I understand what I am doing wrong. To provide some clarity, I am trying to determine what the value of a project is to a firm. To do this I am taking FCF, not including interest or principal payments, and discounting back to get an NPV enterprise value. I then back off net debt to get to equity value. I believe what I am doing wrong is that I show that initial $50M as a cash outflow in period 0 and then back it off again when I go from enterprise value to equity value. Does this make any sense? Thanks for your help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03a0fb7b8594a2f775d15ddeccc01168", "text": "Brownbag your lunch and make coffee at home. If your current lifestyle includes daily takeout lunches and/or barista-made drinks, a rough estimate is you have a negative cash flow of $8-20 per day, $40-100 per week, $2080-5200 per year. If you have daily smoothies, buy a blender. If you have daily lattes buy an espresso maker. I recently got myself a sodastream and it's been worth it. Until you have a six figure portfolio, you aren't going to swing a comparable annual return differential based on asset allocation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "877f62b444601a9c72c48c25447bfa9d", "text": "Balance sheet engineering. You might be right, but it might not be a cost of money issue. It could be a million other things. You might be trying to line up some future ROI metrics because you know something positive or negative about WFM's near term projections. There's many reasons to go one way or another, and future effects on investor sentiment, the balance sheet, various metrics that AMZN has deemed important in past comments/filings, etc.... A lot goes into these decisions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99b27b57ce3a120c0ec6eba6980fe7a2", "text": "Does it make sense to calculate the IRR based on the outstanding value of the project, or just use the cash flows paid out? Let's assume I invest x amount every year for 49 years, and the investment grows at a constant rate, but I do not get dividends before (which will be constant) 50 years later. I assume that the value of the investment will decline as it pays dividend, and will be worth 0 when the dividends stop. Do I calculate the IRR as the negative streams of outflows for the first 49 years and then positive cash inflows from 50 year in the future? If I apply this method, the IRR will be very low, almost equal to the annual expected return. Or based on the current value of the project for each year combined with cash outflows for the first 49 years and dividends from year 50? If I apply this method, the IRR will be a lot higher than the first method.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c8bbe9235409f5c606a86859895a345", "text": "That depends whether you're betting on the market going up, or down, during the year. If you don't like to bet (and I don't), you can take advantage of dollar cost averaging by splitting it up into smaller contributions throughout the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8fefe281a9f811bfd8f1f21c19ed49", "text": "If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da7de84904846162a370c77b3517cae3", "text": "\"So, if I understand the investment program here: You have $100 of tax withheld from your salary at the end of Jan, Feb, Mar... until December. This withholding is in excess of the expected tax for the year. You use the appropriate H&R Block product to file your taxes, and H&R Block gets your refund of $1200 on March 1st. H&R Block adds 10& and give you e-cards for $1320 On the face of it, this represents a return of 15.19% per year, compounded monthly. However, there are a few wrinkles that might make the scheme less inviting: You'll get a receipt for miscellaneous income from H&R Block, and pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". The quoted return is only realized if you can use the e-cards immediately. If they sit around for a while, then they aren't earning any interest. If you sell them for cash at a discount (if you even can!) then this reduces the return. If you don't cash them at all, they're a total loss. This offer was announced on Jan 15, 2015. So you can't go back and put it in place for 2014. And if you set it up for withholding in 2015, is there any guarantee that it the same offer will be in place when filing in 2016?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0aad58dd1f7708fabaa2d5d9a2c7d99", "text": "> 1)What is the formula to turn the annualized rate into a monthly rate? What do you think it is? > 2)What is the formula to find out the NPV of monthly cash flows? Same one as usual. Remember, value can only be summed if it's at the same point in time. > For example, if I get $1000, $2000, and $3000 in months 1, 2, and 3, how do I calculate how much each of those are equal to as a present value if the annual discount rate is 8%? Think it through.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8771dc2165ce076d4b9c06951d94b41", "text": "\"The best way to do this is to use IRR. It's a complicated calculation, but will take into account multiple in/out cash flows over time along with \"\"idle periods\"\" where your money may not have been doing anything. Excel can calculate it for you using the XIRR function\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "589e8e9ab52c413eb5b16076903fd7a3", "text": "The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97c5f72c1b553c04307b43372b616452", "text": "\"I am interested in seeing what happens to your report after you test this, but I don't think it's possible in practice, would not affect your credit score, and also wouldn't be worth it for you to carry a negative balance like that. Having a -1% credit utilization essentially means that you are lending the credit card company money, which isn't really something that the credit card companies \"\"do\"\". They would likely not accept an agreement where you are providing the credit to them. Having credit is a more formal agreement than just 'I paid you too much this month'. Even if your payment does post before the transaction and it says you have a negative balance and gets reported to the credit bureau like that, this would probably get flagged for human review, and a negative credit utilization doesn't really reflect what is happening. Credit utilization is 'how much do you owe / amount of credit available to you', and it's not really correct to say that you owe negative dollars. Carrying a negative balance like that is money that could be invested elsewhere. My guess is that the credit card company is not paying you the APR of your card on the amount they owe you (if they are please provide the name of your card!). They probably don't pay you anything for that negative balance and it's money that's better used elsewhere. Even if it does benefit your credit score you're losing out on any interest (each month!) you could have earned with that money to get maybe 1-2% better rate on your next home or car loan (when will that be?). TLDR: I think credit utilization approaches a limit at 0% because it's based on the amount you owe and you don't really owe negative dollars. I am very interested in seeing the results of this experiment, please update us when you find out!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a5e579b13be145ba602a0f1c0448c12", "text": "\"It can be pretty hard to compute the right number. What you need to know for your actual return is called the dollar-weighted return. This is the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return computed for your actual cash flows. So if you add $100 per month or whatever, that has to be factored in. If you have a separate account then hopefully your investment manager is computing this. If you just have mutual funds at a brokerage or fund company, computing it may be a bunch of manual labor, unless the brokerage does it for you. A site like Morningstar will show a couple of return numbers on say an S&P500 index fund. The first is \"\"time weighted\"\" and is just the raw return if you invested all money at time A and took it all out at time B. They also show \"\"investor return\"\" which is the average dollar-weighted return for everyone who invested in the fund; so if people sold the fund during a market crash, that would lower the investor return. This investor return shows actual returns for the average person, which makes it more relevant in one way (these were returns people actually received) but less relevant in another (the return is often lower because people are on average doing dumb stuff, such as selling at market bottoms). You could compare yourself to the time-weighted return to see how you did vs. if you'd bought and held with a big lump sum. And you can compare yourself to the investor return to see how you did vs. actual irrational people. .02, it isn't clear that either comparison matters so much; after all, the idea is to make adequate returns to meet your goals with minimum risk of not meeting your goals. You can't spend \"\"beating the market\"\" (or \"\"matching the market\"\" or anything else benchmarked to the market) in retirement, you can only spend cash. So beating a terrible market return won't make you feel better, and beating a great market return isn't necessary. I think it's bad that many investment books and advisors frame things in terms of a market benchmark. (Market benchmarks have their uses, such as exposing index-hugging active managers that aren't earning their fees, but to me it's easy to get mixed up and think the market benchmark is \"\"the point\"\" - I feel \"\"the point\"\" is to achieve your financial goals.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a5254a515594b246b95061e5fe235d1", "text": "It sounds like they are matching your IRA contribution dollar for dollar up to 1% of your salary. Think of that as an instant 100% yield on your investment. (Your money instantly doubles.) My 401(k) has been doing pretty well over the last year, but it will take several years before my money doubles. So you can let it sit in cash for a year, then take some pretty hefty fees and you will probably still come out ahead. (Of course it's hard to say without knowing all of the fees.)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
06344940fe19b32a239151a0b25266fb	When investing, is the risk/reward tradeoff linear?	[ { "docid": "1c8be22845f9a82bb3b4eba4039e5b34", "text": "The relationship is not linear, and depends on a lot of factors. The term you're looking for is efficient frontier, the optimal rate of return for a given level of risk. The goal is to be on the efficient frontier, meaning that for the given level of risk, you're receiving the greatest possible rate of return (reward). http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/efficientfrontier.asp", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72105a8c2e27b34cc9735d02a2b58f63", "text": "If a market is efficient then risk/reward should be linear. In simple markets like stocks and bonds, everyone thinks the same way and the risk/reward calculation is simple, so everyone can have an accurate idea of the risk/reward ratio, unless the company has serious undisclosed problems. But in other markets like derivatives and mortgage bonds, few people understand what they're buying so the risks remain hidden. Someone might think a company will do well, so they buy an derivative on that company. But no one understands risk/reward calculations on derivatives, so the risk/reward on the derivative could be way off the price on the derivative.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94edf9da351563b21dc6e941d82b8651", "text": "The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29cb1bedacd26dbd9e49aec8e143e030", "text": "Ditto Bill and I upvoted his answer. But let me add a bit. If everyone knew exactly what the risk was for every investment, then prices would be bid up or down until every stock (or bond or derivative or whatever) was valued at exactly risk times potential profit. (Or more precisely, integral of risk times potential profit.) If company A was 100% guaranteed to make $1 million profit this year, while company B had 50% change to make a $2 million profit and 50% to make $0, and every investor in the world knew that, then I'd expect the total price of all shares of the two stocks to stabilize at the same value. The catch to that, though, is that no one really knows the risk. The risk isn't like, we're going to roll a die and if it comes up even the company makes $1 million and if it comes up odd the company makes $0, so we could calculate the exact probability. The risk comes from lack of information. Will consumers want to buy this new product? How many? What are they willing to pay? How capable is the new CEO? Etc. It's very hard to calculate probabilities on these things. How can you precisely calculate the probability that unforeseen events will occur? So in real life prices are muddled. The risk/reward ratio should be roughly sort of approximately linear, but that's about the most one can say.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ee9435e4a4ef380b677e411167c4f776", "text": "\"Is playing the lottery a wise investment? --Probably not. Is playing the lottery an investment at all? --Probably not though I'll make a remark on that further below. Does it make any sense to play the lottery in order to improve your total asset allocation? --If you follow the theory of the Black Swan, it actually might. Let me elaborate. The Black Swan theory says that events that we consider extremely improbable can have an extreme impact. So extreme, in fact, that its value would massively outweigh the combined value of all impacts of all probable events together. In statistical terms, we are speaking about events on the outer limits of the common probablity distribution, so called outliers that have a high impact. Example: If you invest $2000 on the stock market today, stay invested for 20 years, and reinvest all earnings, it is probable within a 66% confidence interval that you will have an 8 % expected return (ER) per year on average, giving you a total of roughly $9300. That's very much simplified, of course, the actual number can be very different depending on the deviations from the ER and when they happen. Now let's take the same $2000 and buy weekly lottery tickets for 20 years. For the sake of simplicity I will forgo an NPV calculation and assume one ticket costs roughly $2. If you should win, which would be an entirely improbable event, your winnings would by far outweigh your ER from investing the same amount. When making models that should be mathematically solvable, these outliers are usually not taken into consideration. Standard portfolio management (PM) theory is only working within so called confidence intervals up to 99% - everything else just wouldn't be practical. In other words, if there is not at least a 1% probability a certain outcome will happen, we'll ignore it. In practice, most analysts take even smaller confidence intervals, so they ignore even more. That's the reason, though, why no object that would fall within the realms of this outer limit is an investment in terms of the PM theory. Or at least not a recommendable one. Having said all that, it still might improve your position if you add a lottery ticket to the mix. The Black Swan theory specifically does not only apply to the risk side of things, but also on the chance side. So, while standard PM theory would not consider the lottery ticket an investment, thus not accept it into the asset allocation, the Black Swan theory would appreciate the fact that there is minimal chance of huge success. Still, in terms of valuation, it follows the PM theory. The lottery ticket, while it could be part of some \"\"investment balance sheet\"\", would have to be written off to 0 immediately and no expected value would be attached to it. Consequently, such an investment or gamble only makes sense if your other, safe investments give you so much income that you can easily afford it really without having to give up anything else in your life. In other words, you have to consider it money thrown out of the window. So, while from a psychological perspective it makes sense that especially poorer people will buy a lottery ticket, as Eric very well explained, it is actually the wealthier who should consider doing so. If anyone. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d82fb34dc2e7a18aa51ebcdac70db38a", "text": "\"The previous answers make valid points regarding the risks, and why you can't reasonably compare trading for profit/loss to a roll of the die. This answer looks at the math instead. Your assumption: I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Is incorrect, for the reasons stated in other answers. However, the answer to your question: Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Is \"\"yes\"\". But only because the question is flawed. Consequently it's throwing people in all directions with their answers. But quite simply, in a truly random environment the worst case scenario, no matter how improbable, is that you lose over and over again until you have nothing left. This can happen in sequential rolls of the dice AND in trading securities/bonds/whatever. You could guess wrong for every roll of the die AND all of your stock picks could become worthless. Both outcomes result in $0 (assuming you do not gamble with credit). Tell me, which $0 is \"\"worse\"\"? Given the infinite number of plays that \"\"random\"\" implies, the chance of losing your entire bankroll exists in both scenarios, and that is enough by itself to make neither option \"\"worse\"\" than the other. Of course, the opposite is also true. You could only pick winners, with an unlimited upside potential, but again that could happen with either dice rolls or stock picks. It's just highly improbable. 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? Nope. This is where it all falls apart. Just because your chances of losing it all are similarly improbable, does not make you more likely to win with one method or the other. Regression to the mean, when given infinite, truly random outcomes, makes it impossible to \"\"have an edge\"\". Also, \"\"probabilistically\"\" isn't a word, but \"\"probably\"\" is.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe3e1eb2d10d7ee03dca49903f7a486b", "text": "Bad question. Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward. But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period. http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70d79b6a8682048892da8bf1a2f0d8f0", "text": "\"Years ago I wrote an article Risk, Reward, Coin Flipping which explains from a 'game theory' perspective how diversifying works to minimize standard deviation in one's returns. It's long and tedious, not easy to summarize, but it holds up well, I'm pleased with how the analogy does its job. Update - the above is too \"\"link-only\"\", written over 5 years ago. The article I wrote offers a mathematical approach via an understandable example of coin flipping. With just 2 options, a 'head' is a 10% loss, while a 'tail' is a 30% gain. This actually represents the market fairly well as it results in a 10% average gain and 28% standard deviation for just 2 flips. The article shows how by 'diversifying', choosing to make multiple smaller bets, the average 10% stays the same, but the standard deviation is brought down dramatically, 7.6% when we use a sample experiment with 7 coins.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "69e661b4e1154b9542f9d63bc5d62bbb", "text": "So I did some queries on Google Scholar, and the term of art academics seem to use is target date fund. I notice divided opinions among academics on the matter. W. Pfau gave a nice set of citations of papers with which he disagrees, so I'll start with them. In 1969, Paul Sameulson published the paper Lifetime Portfolio Selection By Dynamic Stochaistic Programming, which found that there's no mathematical foundation for an age based risk tolerance. There seems to be a fundamental quibble relating to present value of future wages; if they are stable and uncorrelated with the market, one analysis suggests the optimal lifecycle investment should start at roughly 300 percent of your portfolio in stocks (via crazy borrowing). Other people point out that if your wages are correlated with stock returns, allocations to stock as low as 20 percent might be optimal. So theory isn't helping much. Perhaps with the advent of computers we can find some kind of empirical data. Robert Shiller authored a study on lifecycle funds when they were proposed for personal Social Security accounts. Lifecycle strategies fare poorly in his historical simulation: Moreover, with these life cycle portfolios, relatively little is contributed when the allocation to stocks is high, since earnings are relatively low in the younger years. Workers contribute only a little to stocks, and do not enjoy a strong effect of compounding, since the proceeds of the early investments are taken out of the stock market as time goes on. Basu and Drew follow up on that assertion with a set of lifecycle strategies and their contrarian counterparts: whereas a the lifecycle plan starts high stock exposure and trails off near retirement, the contrarian ones will invest in bonds and cash early in life and move to stocks after a few years. They show that contrarian strategies have higher average returns, even at the low 25th percentile of returns. It's only at the bottom 5 or 10 percent where this is reversed. One problem with these empirical studies is isolating the effect of the glide path from rebalancing. It could be that a simple fixed allocation works plenty fine, and that selling winners and doubling down on losers is the fundamental driver of returns. Schleef and Eisinger compare lifecycle strategy with a number of fixed asset allocation schemes in Monte Carlo simulations and conclude that a 70% equity, 30% long term corp bonds does as well as all of the lifecycle funds. Finally, the earlier W Pfau paper offers a Monte Carlo simulation similar to Schleef and Eisinger, and runs final portfolio values through a utility function designed to calculate diminishing returns to more money. This seems like a good point, as the risk of your portfolio isn't all or nothing, but your first dollar is more valuable than your millionth. Pfau finds that for some risk-aversion coefficients, lifecycles offer greater utility than portfolios with fixed allocations. And Pfau does note that applying their strategies to the historical record makes a strong recommendation for 100 percent stocks in all but 5 years from 1940-2011. So maybe the best retirement allocation is good old low cost S&P index funds!", "title": "" }, { "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": "60c9eac57d227944f7dd9dfc37899a80", "text": "\"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to \"\"score\"\" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23a1942c7b909c8c0a16d1cbf824842e", "text": "If you plan to take profit at $1.00 then your profit will be $40. Then, if you set your stop at $0.88 then your loss if you get stopped will be $20. So your Reward : Risk = 2:1. Note, that this does not take into account brokerage in and out and any slippage from the price gapping past your stop loss.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0d008a892deb44faa5fcc7a59cdb2cb0", "text": "\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f844c3721d14b0eb0bbbb2963e0852d", "text": "I researched quite a bit around this topic, and it seems that this is indeed false. Long ter asset growth does not converge to the compound interest rate of expected return. While it is true that standard deviations of annualized return decrease over time, because the asset value itself changes over time, the standard deviations of the total return actually increases. Thus, it is wrong to say that you can take increased risk because you have a longer time horizon. Source", "title": "" }, { "docid": "642605635985e7e03e7dea5aa0e99d77", "text": "Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4967fe2c74d0aeec195b34cb27b16a01", "text": "\"First of all, \"\"going risky\"\" doesn't mean driving to Las Vegas and playing roulette. The real meaning is that you can afford higher risk/return ratio compared to a person who will retire in the following ten years. Higher return is very important since time works for you and even several extra percent annually will make a big difference in the long run because of compound interest effect. The key is that this requires the investment to not be too risky - if you invest in a single venture and it fails you lose all the money and that's worse that some conservative investment that could yield minimum income. So you still need the investment to be relatively safe. Next, as user Chris W. Rea mentions in the comment funds and ETFs can be very risky - depending on the investment policy they can invest into some very risky ventures or into some specific industry and that poses more risk that investing into \"\"blue chips\"\" for example. So a fund or an ETF can be a good fit for you if you choose a right one.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b82b747d9970443247e234207d2758ca", "text": "While the Vanguard paper is good, it doesn't do a very good job of explaining precisely why each level of stocks or bonds was optimal. If you'd like to read a transparent and quantitative explanation of when and why a a glide path is optimal, I'd suggest the following paper: https://www.betterment.com/resources/how-we-construct-portfolio-allocation-advice/ (Full disclosure - I'm the author). The answer is that the optimal risk level for any given holding period depends upon a combination of: Using these two factors, you construct a risk-averse decision model which chooses the risk level with the best expected average outcome, where it looks only at the median and lower percentile outcomes. This produces an average which is specifically robust to downside risk. The result will look something like this: The exact results will depend on the expected risk and return of the portfolio, and the degree of risk aversion specified. The result is specifically valid for the case where you liquidate all of the portfolio at a specific point in time. For retirement, the glide path needs to be extended to take into account the fact that the portfolio will be liquidated gradually over time, and dynamically take into account the longevity risk of the individual. I can't say precisely why Vanguard's path is how it is.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91ac0fed77d4e280fa2c49c0ad065fa6", "text": "\"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0805a7b927cefad4bf4b37891f454293", "text": "\"A kid can lose everything he owns in a crap shoot and live. But a senior citizen might not afford medical treatment if interest rates turn and their bonds underperform. In modern portfolio theory, risk/\"\"aggression\"\" is measured by beta and you get more return by increasing risk. Risk-adjusted return is measured by the Sharpe ratio and the efficient frontier shows how much return you get for each level of risk. For simplicity, we will assume that choosing beta is the only investment choice you make. You are buying a house tomorrow all cash, you should set aside that much in liquid assets today. (Return = who cares, Beta = 0) Your kids go to college in 5 years, so you invest funds now with a 5 year investment horizon to produce, with a reasonable level of certainty, the needed cash then. (Beta = low) You wish to leave money in your estate. Invest for the highest return with a horizon of your lifetime. (Return = maximum, Beta = who cares) In other words, you set risk based on how important your expenses are now or later. And your portfolio is a weighted average. On paper, let's say you have sold yourself into indentured servitude. In return you have received a paid-up-front annuity which pays dividends and increases annually. For someone in their twenties: This adds up to a present value of $1 million. When young, the value of lifetime remaining wages is high. It is also low risk, you will probably find a job eventually in any market condition. If your portfolio is significantly smaller than $1 million this means that the low risk of future wages pulls down your beta, and therefore: Youth invest aggressively with available funds because they compensate large, low-risk future earnings to meet their desired risk appetite.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
8c5eafdd5afda48c93f44d5afa7f14ba	Money market account for emergency savings	[ { "docid": "caa105e3bf45ddb7580f6e40644e52e2", "text": "Depends on how urgent your need for the emergency savings might be. If the money market account allows you to get your money in the same amount of time as the savings account then there is no real downside, but if the account takes a few days for you to access and you need your money sooner then you probably shouldn't. Also money market accounts DO give more interest than most savings accounts, but the interest rates are generally still pretty low, so it might be an improvement, but probably not a huge one", "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": "b87c2f3799d8dd53fdbf5a47686737a0", "text": "Most emergencies are less than 1,000 in nature. As such I would keep at least that amount in a checking/savings account at the bank from which you pay your bills or can get cash from. This amount may increase so you can avoid low balance fees, or because of the nature of your life style and income. Beyond that, you can search for yield. I personally like online savings accounts like Amex Personal Savings, Ally or others. Money market accounts will work equally well. There you can keep the bulk of your emergency savings and large purchase savings. Keep in mind you still won't earn much. A 40K emergency fund will only earn you $38/month at Ally.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "346c33dc312a12045a763dfadf35366c", "text": "\"From a quick look at sources on the web, it looks to me like Money Market Accounts and savings accounts are both paying about the same rate today: around 1%, give or take maybe 0.4%. I suppose that's better than nothing, but it's not a whole lot better than nothing. (I saw several savings accounts advertising 0.1% interest. If they mailed you a check, the postage could be more than the returns.) Personally, I keep a modest amount of emergency cash in my checking account, and I put my \"\"savings\"\" in a very safe mutual fund. That generally gets somewhere from making maybe 3% a year to losing a small amount. Certainly nothing to sing about, but better than savings or money markets. Whether you are willing to tolerate the modest risk or the sales charges is a matter for your personal situation and feelings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b2dea4f557792057a43a62a5cc9c0ce", "text": "I think it's only a choice of terminology. Typically with a money market account has check-writing privileges whereas a savings account does not. In terms of rates, this blog has a good list of high interest yield savings accounts. http://www.hustlermoneyblog.com/best-bank-rates/ Disclosure: I am not affiliated with this blog. I just think it is a good resource to compare the rates across different banks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "282a19e1d7ad4b6cbbb606ae59f137c0", "text": "\"I'm not a fan of using cash for \"\"emergency\"\" savings. Put it in a stable investment that you can liquidate fairly quickly if you have to. I'd rather use credit cards for a while and then pay them off with investment funds if I must. Meanwhile those investments earn a lot more than the 0.1 percent savings or money market accounts will. Investment grade bond funds, for example, should get you a yield of between 4-6% right now. If you want to take a longer term view put that money into a stock index fund like QQQ or DIA. There is the risk it will go down significantly in a recession but over time the return is 10%. (Currently a lot more than that!) In any event you can liquidate securities and get the money into your bank is less than a week. If you leave it in cash it basically earns nothing while you wait for that rainy day which many never come.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a4d404b665c8b0e41c2f6c8b514fbc9a", "text": "\"In truth there is no such thing as a risk-free asset. That is why your textbook feels the need to add the qualifier \"\"for practical purposes,\"\" meaning that the risk of a money market account is so much lower than virtually any other asset class that it can reasonably be approximated as risk free. The main risk of any bond, short-term or long-term, is that its price may change before the maturity date. This could happen for one of many reasons, such as interest rate changes, creditworthiness, market risk tolerance, and so on. Thus you may lose money if you need to redeem your investment ahead of the scheduled maturity.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c062ba18b2d2807bcfe209db97256229", "text": "\"An emergency fund is very well defined, both on this site and across the web. An emergency fund is a cash account where you keep money for emergencies so you don't need to take on debt like a loan or credit cards. Car breaks down? emergency fund can help pay that. Lose your job? The emergency fund is there to pay rent and for groceries until you're back up an running. There are several schools of thought on how much money should be in your emergency fund, but it boils down to how high your risk assessment is. Typically, the average is to have 3 months in cash available at all times (like in a savings account). It'd be better to have more, but that's a typical goal. You're also asking about investments in the comments. An emergency fund should be readily available. If you already have $10K in savings, set aside what you would need to cover a few months of bills into a cash-ready savings account, then invest the rest. Investments sometimes take time, or have penalties, if you withdraw them. Additionally, as @JoeTaxpayer so correctly pointed out, getting into the habit of maintaining a separate emergency fund helps protect your other investments from becoming a crutch and instead used to save up for larger things like a house or, especially, retirement. See also: What expenses should be covered by an emergency fund What should I reserve \"\"emergency savings\"\" for? What expenses do most people not prepare for that turn into \"\"emergencies\"\" but are not covered by an Emergency Fund? Less than a year at my first job out of college, what do I save for first?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90cf653a01b6f9a034dc013a6e16605f", "text": "\"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bbe5397d9417e54c85543cd31c858101", "text": "If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2865107e261613e3cc2c935b5a67bace", "text": "\"These good rates all tend to be \"\"on up to $X\"\" where X is some low'ish number that could require multiple accounts. They often also come with other strings, like set up automatic deposits/withdrawals, and use debit card at least 15 times per month. The two you mention have these flaws, whether or not it's worth it depends on if you are happy to meet those requirements and how big your emergency fund is. Personally, I'd rather get rewards on a credit card than use a debit card, and I don't want to open a bunch of accounts, so I have a boring savings account with a pretty low interest rate for my emergency fund. It's liquid, earns some interest, and I don't have to think about it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b804ef09f486798a3503be8d5ce1a1e", "text": "You seem to have a grasp of the basic principles involved, but your estimation of the risk you are taking seems a bit low. Your non-investment reserves are unlikely to cover your expenses for more than a month, so the chance that you would need to sell investments to cover additional expenses is high. You mention that I am flexible with the 'cash on hand' amount. For instance, for about three months I put a very tight spending/investing freeze on my life because I knew I'd be leaving jobs and moving (I already had the other job lined up). Those savings presumably went toward moving expenses, as your usual savings were insufficient. In the event that you are laid off suddenly, you might find yourself in the same position again, with added unplanned expenses like fees for breaking a lease. Your current plan involves selling investments to cover the gap. Based on your age you have probably only invested in a predominantly positive market, so the chance that you might need to sell investments for cash seems like a reasonable trade-off for the added potential gains. Your perception might change if the markets go south and you are forced to sell into a down market, possibly at a significant loss. You also don't indicate if your investments are currently sufficient to cover an extended period of unemployment. You are taking on a lot of risk under your current plan. Essentially you are trading possible investment gains for flexibility and time. By making small changes like saving at least enough to move as you did previously, you can give yourself time to react to job loss or other unexpected financial need. Rather than give the traditional emergency funds advice, I suggest you look at the broader picture. The total amount of savings/risk is up to you, but you should consider your current savings as insufficient to rely on as a safety net.", "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": "d8209f4c9de8d573f190b134f7b2fb0b", "text": "\"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc13c4bd1503bbb1b62c7955bea94d58", "text": "\"An alternative to a savings account is a money market account. Not a bank \"\"Money Market\"\" account which pays effectively the same silly rate as a savings account, but an actual Money Market investment account. You can even write checks against some Money Market investment accounts. I have several accounts worth about 13,000 each. Originally, my \"\"emergency fund\"\" was in a CD ladder. I started experimenting with two different Money market investment accounts recently. Here's my latest results: August returns on various accounts worth about $13k: - Discover Bank CD: $13.22 - Discover Bank CD: $13.27 - Discover Bank CD: $13.20 - Discover Savings: $13.18 - Credit Union \"\"Money Market\"\" Savings account: $1.80 - Fidelity Money Market Account (SPAXX): $7.35 - Vanguard Money market Account (VMFXX): $10.86 The actual account values are approximate. The Fidelity Money Market Account holds the least value, and the Credit Union account by far the most. The result of the experiment is that as the CDs mature, I'll be moving out of Discover Bank into the Vanguard Money Market account. You can put your money into more traditional equities mutual fund. The danger with them is the stock market may drop big the day before you want to make your withdrawl... and then you don't have the down payment for your house anymore. But a well chosen mutual fund will yield better. There are 3 ways a mutual fund increase in value: Here's how three of my mutual funds did in the past month... adjusted as if the accounts had started off to be worth about $13,000: Those must vary wildly month-to-month. By the way, if you look up the ticker symbols, VASGX is a Vanguard \"\"Fund of Funds\"\" -- it invests not 100% in the stock market, but 80% in the stock market and 20% in bonds. VSMGX is a 60/40 split. Interesting that VASGX grew less than VSMGX...but that assumes my spreadsheet is correct. Most of my mutual funds pay dividends and capital gains once or twice a year. I don't think any pay in August.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0fe826a1cf809e4dddefdd6a66c2f2ac", "text": "Not OP, but let's see: My money-market account is showing 0.25% interest rate. My savings account, 0.20%. And checking, 0.22%. It doesn't matter where I keep my emergency fund and what I keep my checking balance. It's making fuck-all for interest. And I need to keep a couple thousand in there because my mortgage hits for about $1600. And my monthly CC spend averages ~$3500 monthly. I simply can't keep a couple hundred in there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f038261a6659899f732d703fdcdf49f6", "text": "Money market funds have usually no limits on redemptions or fees. They're frequently used as an alternative to savings accounts. While technically loss is possible, the investments in these funds are done in short term high grade bonds (read the prospectus). I've never encountered money market underperforming a regular savings account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f694ed0f5dd14110332cd21255788977", "text": "From a budgeting perspective, the emergency fund is a category in which you've budgeted funds for the unexpected. These are things that weren't able to be predicted and budgeted for in advance, or things that exceeded the expected costs. For example you might budget $150 per month for car maintenance, and typically spend some of it while the rest builds up over time for unexpected repairs, so you have a few hundred available for that. But this month your transmission died and you have a $3,000 bill. You'll then fund most of this out of your emergency fund. This doesn't cover where to store that money though, which leads me to my next point. Emergencies are emergencies because they come without warning, without you having a chance to plan. Thefore the primary things you want in an emergency fund account are stability and quick access. You can structure investments to be whatever you think of as safe or stable but you don't want to be thinking about whether it's a good time to sell when you need the money right now. But the bigger problem is access. When you need the funds on a weekend, holiday, anytime outside of market hours, you're not going to be able to just sell some stocks and go to an ATM. This is the reason why it's recommended to have these funds in a checking or savings account usually. The reason I mentioned the budgeting side first is because I wanted to point out that if you're budgeting well, most of the unexpected expenses you have should have been expected in a sense; you can still plan for something without knowing when or if it will happen. So in the example of a car repair, ideally you're already budgeting for possible repairs, if you own a home you're budgeting for things that would go wrong, budgeting for speeding tickets, for surprise out of pocket medical costs, etc. These then become part of your normal budget: they aren't part of the emergency fund anymore. The bright side about budgeting for something unexpected is that you know what that money is for, and do you likely also know how quickly you'll need it. For example you know if you have unexpected medical costs that happen very quickly, you're not likely you need a bag of cash on a moment's notice. So those last two points lead to the fact that your actual emergency fund, the dollars that are for things you simply could not foresee, will be relatively small. A few thousand dollars or so in most cases. If you've got things structured like this, you'll be happy to have a few grand available at a moment's notice. The bulk of the money you would use for other surprise expenses (or things like 6 months of living expenses) is represented in other specific categories and you already know the timeframe in which you need it (probably enough time that it could be invested, risk to taste). In short: by expecting the unexpected, you can sidestep this issue and not worry so much about missed returns on the emergency fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec1bd6cc358334f5a0aef37cd798fd8b", "text": "i think emergency fund should be in a more liquid account (like regular saving or money market) so you can withdraw money any time, while your regular saving can be tied up in a long term CD, bond or an investment account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51d67dbcaecc91a60313072496ea52fb", "text": "Your role sounds like accounting/bookkeeping. I worked in fp&a for a REIT and my job was to forecast cash flows and support development managers who wanted to pitch projects to senior management. Occasionally, I helped analyze new acquisitions and every quarter we had to do valuations for covenant compliance on our loans. Was a cool job but eventually left for capital markets role.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cfb787181731c3db190ce83e73934f7", "text": "You can't. If there was a reliable way to identify an undervalued stock, then people would immediately buy it, its price would rise and it wouldn't be undervalued any more.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
531c7dcfb890a83893a9a507f41d8ffe	Principal 401(k) managed fund fees, wow. What can I do?	[ { "docid": "8d7d481e5d795432b8b6fdcbe3a1b1df", "text": "In my opinion, the fee is criminal. There are ETFs available to the public that have expenses as low as .05%. The index fund VIIIX an institution level fund available to large 401(k) plans charges .02%. I'll pay a total of under 1% over the next 50 years, Consider that at retirement, the safe withdrawal rate has been thought to be 4%, and today this is considered risky, perhaps too high. Do you think it's fair, in any sense of the word to lose 30% of that withdrawal? Another angle for you - In my working years, I spent most of those years at either the 25% or 28% federal bracket taxable income. I should spend my retirement at 15% marginal rate. On average, the purpose of my 401(k) was to save me (and my wife) 10-13% in tax from deposit to withdrawal. How long does it take for an annual 1.1% excess fee to negate that 10% savings? If one spends their working life paying that rate, they will lose half their wealth to those managing their money. PBS aired a show in its Frontline series titled The Retirement Gamble, it offers a sobering look at how such fees are a killer to your wealth.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e09410dc98ac4fd4bd5a4282d03d16c8", "text": "I would even say 1% is not even reasonable in this age. The short answer is there probably isn't much you can do directly. However, there are a few things to consider:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bce10b43f033ce8418cd40a93e9741fd", "text": "When you look at managed funds the expense ratios are always high. They have the expense of analyzing the market, deciding where to invest, and then tracking the new investments. The lowest expenses are with the passive investments. What you have noticed is exactly what you expect. Now if you want to invest in active funds that throw off dividends and capital gains, the 401K is the perfect place to do it, because that income will not be immediately taxable. If the money is in a Roth 401K it is even better because that income will never be taxed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0535f4b09f6aa7e67feb4ec676bbf52c", "text": "Would anything happen if you bring this issue to the attention of the HR department? Everyone in the company who participates in the 401(k) is affected, so you'd think they'd all be interested in switching to a another 401k provider that will make them more money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76fdec82f23aeb8c14fab73c29211526", "text": "\"Your employer could consider procuring benefits via a third party administrator, which provides benefits to and bargains collectively on behalf of multiple small companies. I used to work for a small start-up that did exactly that to improve their benefits across the board, including the 401k. The fees were still higher than buying a Vanguard index or ETF directly, but much better than the 1% you're talking about. In the meantime, here's my non-professional advice from personal experience and hindsight: If you're in a low/medium tax bracket and your 401k sucks, you might be better off to pay the tax up front and invest in a taxable account for the flexibility (assuming you're disciplined enough that you don't need the 401k to protect you from yourself). If you max out a crappy 401k today, you might miss a better opportunity to contribute to a 401k in the future. Big expenses could pop up at exactly the same time you get better investment options. Side note: if not enough employees participate in the 401k, the principals won't be able to take full advantage of it themselves. I think it's called a \"\"nondiscrimination test\"\" to ensure that the plan benefits all employees, not just the owners and management. So voting with your feet might be the best way to spark improvement with your employer. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a11ccdbf30c6fbfee86941d06167d15", "text": "The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "53ba0c45a095c1a308de57c4ddfd7b8e", "text": "It's not like there's a shortage of fiduciaries out there. If someone wants to pay a brokerage fee rather than a fiduciary fee, I don't see why they should be compelled to. A fiduciary duty is expensive, and will likely raise costs. If the problem is that people don't know whether advisors are fiduciaries, then it's a disclosure problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aa6d6becc344873daafe3d8b326cabe", "text": "817/150,000 = .54% Fees are based on balances not deposits, usually. Putting a front loaded fund as an option in a 401(k) should be criminal, not sure it is though. Ask your HR dept to provide you fee details. If the .54% is correct, it's not bad. I hope you have money from prior jobs as well, by the way.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c76793ecddb999aba98b2455a784a69f", "text": "\"You can always ask. The answer is likely to be \"\"no\"\" -- the company is probably not set up to be able to tweak that number on a case by case basis. I'm not sure whether there are regulations which might kick in, as well; these plans are regulated to prevent abuse and that tends to make doing anything unusual difficult. Find another tax-deferred/tax-advantaged investment and route the money there?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74", "text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a0bf6bc65d807b555cb98d1d2a6053", "text": "Your best bet is to remove the excess contribution. Your broker should have forms to do that. There is a 6% tax on the excess contributions for each year that it remains uncorrected. It would be better to just eat the $25 fee and get rid of any future headaches.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f0e35575aa64bebb6e39286109ddf921", "text": "\"Having worked for a financial company for years, my advice is to stay away from all the \"\"Freedom Funds\"\" offered. They're a new way for Fidelity to justify charging a higher management fee on those particular funds. That extra 1% or so a year is great for making the company money; it will kill your rate of return over the next 25+ years you're putting money into your retirement account. All these funds do is change the percentage of your funds in stocks vs. more fixed investments (bonds, etc.) so you have a higher percentage in stocks while you're young and slowly move the percentage more towards fixed as you get older. If you take a few hours every 5 years to re-balance your portfolio and just slowly shift more money towards fixed investments, you'll achieve the same thing WITHOUT the extra annual fee. So how much difference are we talking here? Let's do a quick example. Based on your salary of $70k and a 4% match by your company, you'll have $5,600 a year to put in your 401(k) (your 4% plus matched 4%). I'll also assume an 8% annual return for both funds. Here is what that 1% extra service charge will cost you: Fund with a 1% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $60.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $301.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $3,782 Fund with a 2% service charge: Annual Fee Paid Year 1 - $121.00 Annual Fee Paid Year 25 (assuming 8% growth in assets) - $472.00 Total Fees Year 1 through 25: $6,489 That's a total of $2,707 in extra fees over 25 years on just the investment you make this year! Next year if you invest the same amount in your 401k that will be another $2,707 paid over 25 years to the management company. This pattern repeats EACH year you pay the higher management fee. Trust me, if you invest that money in stock instead of paying it as fees, you'll have a whole lot more money saved when it's time to retire. My advice, pick a percentage you're comfortable with in stocks at your age, maybe 85 - 90%, and pick the stock funds with the lowest management fees (the remaining 10 - 15% should go into a fixed fund). Make sure you pick at least some of your stock money, I do 20 - 25%, and select a diverse (lots of different countries) international fund. For any retirement money you plan to save above the 4% getting matched by your company, set up a Roth IRA. That will give you the freedom to invest in any stocks or funds you want. Find some low-cost index funds (such as VTI for stocks, and BND for bonds) and put your money in those. Invest the same amount every month, automatically, and your cost average will work itself out through up markets and down. Good luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1be62ce02096d39859cc6bb774405f7", "text": "The fee representing the expense ratio is charged as long as you hold the investment. It is deducted daily from the fund assets, and thus reduces the price per share (NAV per share) that is calculated each day after the markets close. The investment fee is charged only when you make an investment in the fund. So, invest in the fund in one swell foop (all $5500 or $6500 for older people, all invested in a single transaction) rather than make monthly investments into the fund (hold the money in a money-market within your Roth IRA if need be). But, do check if there are back-end loads or 12b1 fees associated with the fund. The former often disappear after a few years; the latter are another permanent drain on performance. Also, please check whether reinvestment of dividends and capital gains incur the $75 transaction fee.", "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": "8f3a30c56551f79cc53977e34955a6ee", "text": "\"GreenMatt - this is a good question, and a question I have asked about whether to invest in a Roth IRA, or a traditional IRA. This is my take on the picture, I'm not sure about your tax situation and how much you'd have to pay for each conversion you did, whether you have extra money to pay those taxes, etc. In my opinion I don't think it would be a good idea to use your 401(k) principal to pay taxes, but to have the extra money to pay these when rolling over so you don't lose any interest, especially since you're near the \"\"end\"\" of your \"\"snowball\"\" effect with interest in your retirement account. Here is a resource to consider. Also, another thing to consider that I don't really see much of on here is inflation. If you're going to be in the same tax bracket as you are now, and if whatever you're contributing to your 401(k) or traditional IRA is NOT bumping you down in the 15% bracket, then I would suggest doing a ROTH IRA. I say this because to me, when I retire, I would have rather paid my taxes throughout the years (I'm 23 and in 25% marginal tax bracket) in a ROTH IRA and pay nothing when I'm withdrawing in 30 years, factors people forget to consider are that the Cost of Living is going to be MUCH MUCH higher for me down the road, and the cost of sending a child to school is going to be much higher as well. Since your child is young, consider this site for the cost of a college education for your child. This is comparing the average cost of education for someone attending college in 2015 versus 2033 (a child born IN 2015). While this seems drastic, and there could be a lot of different things that happen by that time, it's a decent illustration. While the website provided certainly isn't validated by the DoE, I have read multiple articles about this, and they are all very similar. Again, other things could happen between now and your child's college career, but if college becomes \"\"free\"\" we're paying for it, and if it's not free and raises at historical rates you're paying for it. I also don't really want to comment on what is going to happen with taxes over the years, I'm not sure where you live (I'm in the U.S.), but IMO I believe they either A) won't change or B) will raise slightly. As far as SS goes, I think it's fair and definitely more than reasonable to not expect SS in retirement. I'm definitely not counting on it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "def9e9ee0d41307bfb18e4bf8d075efb", "text": "Whether or not it's reasonable is a matter of opinion, but there are certainly cheaper options out there. It does seem strange to me that your credit union charges a percentage of your assets rather than a flat fee since they shouldn't have to do any more work based on how much money you have invested. I would look into rolling over your IRA to Vanguard or Fidelity. Neither charge administrative fees, and they offer no-load and no-transaction fee funds with low expenses. If you went with Fidelity directly, you'd be bypassing the middle man (your credit union) and their additional administrative fees. Vanguard tends to offer even cheaper funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c2fb38a15c99bf28d50cb7d0d6e7c5a", "text": "Merrill charges $500 flat fee to (I assume purchase) my untraded or worthless security. In my case, it's an OTC stock whose management used for a microcap scam, which resulted in a class action lawsuit, etc. but the company is still listed on OTC and I'm stuck with 1000s of shares. (No idea about the court decision)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6cc30e76ef9235e52b2a547dac32a3a", "text": "Considering the combined accounts you're contributing $100 per month and they want $100 per year to administer them... that's 8.3% of your contributions gone to fees each year. To me, that's a definite no. Without getting in to bad mouthing the adviser for even making the suggestion, the scale of your account doesn't warrant a fee that high. Fees are very meaningful to the little fish investors. There are LOADS of IRA account providers. With that level of competition, there are several that have very reasonable account minimums, no annual maintenance fees, and a suite of no fee, no load, no commission, low expense ratio funds to choose from. Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard come to mind. I know Schwab is running a big ad campaign right now as it's reduced some of it's already low expense ratios. If I were you, yes I would move the account because you can even get rid of the $10/year/account fee. But, no, I would not move it to a higher fee situation. In my opinion on a $3,600 account + $1,200 per year in contributions, you don't need advise. You need a good broad market low fee index fund, and enough discipline to understand that retirement is 25 years away so you keep contributing even when news is bad and the market is going down. In 10 years maybe talk to an adviser. Using the S&P500 index daily close historical data from calendar year 2016, considering first of the month monthly deposits and a starting balance of $3,600, you would come out at the end of the year with about $5,294. That's $494 in gain on your total contributions of $4,800. They'd take $100, that's about 20% of your gain. Compared to a no fee account with a reasonable expense ratio of 0.1% the fee would be just $5.30. Bearing in mind also that your $100 per year account will probably be invested in funds that also have an expense ratio fee structure further zapping gains. Further, you lose the compounding effect of the $100 fee over time which adds up to a significant of retirement funds considering a 25 year period. If all you did was put that $100 fee in to a 1% savings account each year for 25 years you'd end up with $2,850. (Considering the average 7% return of the S&P you'd have $6,964 on just your $100 per year fees) This is why you should be so vigilant about fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1", "text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f3c87da7cc52e6d91695081713a8d9d", "text": "\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4eb21a693fbd8bfccffd42ad8ca2d72a", "text": "I use mint.com for tracking my finances. It works on mobile phones, tablets, and in a browser. If you don't mind the initial hassle of putting in the credentials you use to access your account online, you'll find that you're able to build a comprehensive picture of the state of your finances relatively quickly. It does a great job of separating the various types of financial transactions you engage in, and also lets you customize those classifications with tags. It's ad-supported, so there's no out-of-pocket cost to you, and it doesn't preclude you from using the personal finance software you already have on your phone.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1cbc5e68834c17e385219d2290f75a50	401k vs. real estate for someone who is great at saving?	[ { "docid": "74b1000ebe616ec1d7efb65f43d157f6", "text": "Apples and oranges. The stock market requires a tiny bit of your time. Perhaps a lot if you are interested in individual stocks, and pouring through company annual reports, but close to none if you have a mix of super low cost ETFs or index fund. The real estate investing you propose is, at some point, a serious time commitment. Unless you use a management company to handle incoming calls and to dispatch repair people. But that's a cost that will eat into your potential profits. If you plan to do this 'for real,' I suggest using the 401(k), but then having the option to take loans from it. The ability to write a check for $50K is pretty valuable when buying real estate. When you run the numbers, this will benefit you long term. Edit - on re-reading your question Rental Property: What is considered decent cash flow? (with example), I withdraw my answer above. You overestimated the return you will get, the actual return will likely be negative. It doesn't take too many years of your one per year strategy to wipe you out. Per your comment below, if bought right, rentals can be a great long term investment. Glad you didn't buy the loser.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e97b9935d422e0a08f35ada912eecf77", "text": "With an appropriate selection within a 401K and if operating expenses are low, you get tax deferred savings and possibly a lower tax bracket for now. The returns vary of course with market fluctuations but for almost 3 years it has been double digit growth on average. Some health care sector funds were up over 40% last year. YMMV. With stocks and mutual funds that hold them, you also are in a sense betting that people want their corporations to grow and succeed. Others do most of the work. Real estate should be part of your savings strategy but understand that they are not kidding when they talk about location. It can lose value. Tenants tend to have some problem part of the year such that some owners find it necessary to have a paid property manager to buffer from their complaints. Other owners get hauled into court and sued as slum lords for allegedly not doing basics. Tenants can ruin your property as well. There is maintenance, repair, replacement, insurance against injury not just property damage, and property taxes. While some of it might be deductible, not all is. You may want to consider that there are considerable ongoing costs and significant risks in time and money with real estate as an investment at a level that you do not incur with a 401K. If you buy mainly to flip, then be aware that if there are unforeseen issues with the house or the market sours as it can, you could be stuck with an immovable drain on your income. If you lose your job could you make payments? Many, many people sadly lost their homes or investment properties that way in 2008-2010.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7463e6b01c2f38e523cd6ba482a29b8a", "text": "\"A couple of distinctions. First, if you were to \"\"invest in real estate\"\" were you planning to buy a home to live in, or buy a home to rent out to someone else? Buying a home as a primary residence really isn't \"\"investing in real estate\"\" per se. It's buying a place to live rather than renting one. Unless you rent a room out or get a multi-family unit, your primary residence won't be income-producing. It will be income-draining, for the most part. I speak as a homeowner. Second, if you are buying to rent out to someone else, buying a single home is quite a bit different than buying an REIT. The home is a lot less liquid, the transaction costs are higher, and all of your eggs are in one basket. Having said that, though, if you buy one right and do your homework it can set you on the road for a very comfortable retirement.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c3af0fe71d914d59ad6bde90873c13a", "text": "Option A - you sell the house and then use the money to pay off a portion of your second mortgage. The return on that investment is 5.5% a year, or $1925 net. Option B - you rent it out, that will bring you $5220 (435 x 12), more than 2.5 times option A. That's not counting any money going towards the principal of the loan. Given that you'll be using a property management company, you can be fairly certain that there won't be any unexpected expenses (credit check, security deposit should take care of that) Option C - you invest the money somewhere else. You'll have to get 15% return in order to beat option B. I don't think that's sustainable. You should talk to a CPA about the tax implications, but I'm fairly certain that you'll do better tax wise to rent it out, since you can use depreciation to lower your tax bill. Finally, where do you think real estate prices will be in 4 years? If you think they'll increase that's another reason to hold onto the property and rent it. Finally finally, if you plan to rent it out long term (over 4 years), it will be a good idea to refinance and lock the current interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18a41c6e82cb828cc6beeb5ccba6f277", "text": "\"With a healthy income its quite possible to contribute too much into 401Ks/IRAs. For example, if your retired today and had 3 million or so, how much more would you need? Would an extra million materially change your life? Would it make you happier if you invested that extra in some rental properties or perhaps a business like a sandwich or ice cream shop where you have more direct control? This kind of discussion is possible as you indicate that you have taken care of your life financially. It seems at odds with the negative press describing the woefully condition of the standard person's finances. These articles ignore a very simple fact: its because of bad behavior. You, on the contrary, have behaved well and are in the process of reaping rewards. This is where I feel your \"\"mental gymnastics\"\" originates. Looking to engage in the rental market is no different then buying a franchise. You are opening a business of your own. You'll have to educate yourself and are likely to make a few mistakes that will cause you to write checks to solve. Your goal is to minimize those mistakes. After all, what do you know about the rental home business? I am guessing not much. Educate yourself. Read and spend some money on taking knowledgeable people out for coffee. In the end you should understand that although a poor decision may cost you money you cannot really make a bad decision. Lets say you do buy a rental property, things go south, you sell for a loss, etc.... In the end the \"\"butchers bill\"\" is 50K or so. Will that materially change your life? Probably not. The worst case is perhaps you have to work a year or two beyond the anticipated retirement age to make up that money. No big deal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1edca5b9b17bb709dc2829c540f211a5", "text": "\"Those advantages you've described (tax treatment and employee match) are what you receive in exchange for \"\"locking up\"\" the money. Ultimately it's a personal choice of whether that tradeoff makes sense for you situation (I'll echo the response that the real answer to your question is planning). Roth options (either 401K or IRA) may be good compromises for you, since you can withdraw those contributions (but not the earnings) without any penalty, since you've already paid taxes on them. Another avenue to explore may be a self-directed IRA or a Solo 401(k), depending on your circumstances and eligibility. In both cases, there are plan providers that structure the plan to allow you to use the money to invest in things besides traditional stocks, bonds, and mutual funds (often referred to as \"\"checkbook control\"\" accounts). They are very commonly used among Real Estate investors (this thread from BiggerPockets has quite a bit of info). You'd want to consult with an accountant or financial adviser before going down that path.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "127853d48965a4dfdfc80c462e62052c", "text": "Some of the other answers mention this, but I want to highlight it with a personal anecdote. I have a property in a mid-sized college town in the US. Its current worth about what we paid for it 9 years ago. But I don't care at all because I will likely never sell it. That house is worth about $110,000 but rents for $1500 per month. It is a good investment. If you take rental income and the increase in equity from paying down the mortgage (subtracting maintenance) the return on the down payment is very good. I haven't mentioned the paper losses involved in depreciation as that's fairly US specific: the laws are different in other jurisdictions but for at least the first two years we showed losses while making money. So there are tax advantages as well (at least currently, those laws also change over time). There is a large difference between investing in a property for appreciation and investing for income. Even in those categories there are niches that can vary widely: commercial vs residential, trendy, vacation/tourist areas, etc. Each has their place, but ensure that you don't confuse a truism meant for one type of real estate investing as being applicable to real estate investing in general.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef20c2eeb309e86103342ac03ce8e921", "text": "You could look into an index fund or ETF that invests primarily in Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT's). An REIT is any corporation, trust or association that acts as an investment agent specializing in real estate and real estate mortgages Many investment firms offer an index fund or ETF like this. For example, Vanguard and Fidelity have funds that invest primarily in real estate markets. You could also invest in a home construction ETF, like iShares' ITB, which invests in companies related to home construction. This ETF includes more companies than just REITs, so for example, Home Depot is included.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5efec3496958e96ff0dcca8086e3bb24", "text": "It's an issue of how much of a safety net you want, and part of that is going to be how much of a safety net you have in other areas. You should take into account what regular expenses you have, what emergency expenses you might have, what insurance policies you have, what deductibles those policies have, and what sources of money you have. As Alex B says, a HELOC isn't a guaranteed source of money, but it is one contingency. If you have a large amount of equity and your local real estate market is stable, your bank could cancel your HELOC, but they would have no financial incentive to do so. Other possible safety nets to consider would be friends and family, credit cards, and loans backed by retirement funds. Obviously you shouldn't rely on the last two for everyday expenses, but it's reasonable to consider them as contingencies in true emergencies. Also, if you have a significant net worth, home equity and savings account should not be the only places you're storing your wealth. Look into stocks, bonds, and money market accounts. Your expected returns in the stock market should be higher than the interest you're paying on the HELOC. Stocks are more risky and obviously you shouldn't put all your savings there, but it is one more basket to put your eggs in, and unlike a savings account your money isn't just sitting there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81f9e0cdef3a0e82ca2d085a310182fb", "text": "The below assessment is for primary residences as opposed to income properties. The truth is that with the exception of a housing bubble, the value of a house might outpace inflation by one or two percent. According to the US Census, the price of a new home per square foot only went up 4.42% between 1963 and 2008, where as inflation was 4.4%. Since home sizes increased, the price of a new home overall outpaced inflation by 1% at 5.4% (source). According to Case-Shiller, inflation adjusted prices increased a measly .4% from 1890-2004 (see graph here). On the other hand your down payment money and the interest towards owning that home might be in a mutual fund earning you north of eight percent. If you don't put down enough of a down payment to avoid PMI, you'll be literally throwing away money to get yourself in a home that could also be making money. Upgrades to your home that increase its value - unless you have crazy do-it-yourself skills and get good deals on the materials - usually don't return 100% on an investment. The best tend to be around 80%. On top of the fact that your money is going towards an asset that isn't giving you much of a return, a house has costs that a rental simply doesn't have (or rather, it does have them, but they are wrapped into your rent) - closing costs as a buyer, realtor fees and closing costs as a seller, maintenance costs, and constantly escalating property taxes are examples of things that renters deal with only in an indirect sense. NYT columnist David Leonhart says all this more eloquently than I ever could in: There's an interactive calculator at the NYT that helps you apply Leonhart's criteria to your own area. None of this is to say that home ownership is a bad decision for all people at all times. I'm looking to buy myself, but I'm not buying as an investment. For example, I would never think that it was OK to stop funding my retirement because my house will eventually fund it for me. Instead I'm buying because home ownership brings other values than money that a rental apartment would never give me and a rental home would cost more than the same home purchase (given 10 years).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f598ab2f6fbf16a9948e513ffbee3307", "text": "Lets consider what would happen if you invested $1500/mo plus $10k down in a property, or did the same in a low-cost index fund over the 30 year term that most mortgages take. The returns of either scenarios cannot be guaranteed, but there are long term analyses that shows the stock market can be expected to return about 7%, compounded yearly. This doesn't mean each year will return 7%, some years will be negative, and some will be much higher, but that over a long span, the average will reach 7%. Using a Time-Value-of-Money calculator, that down payment, monthly additions of $1,500, and a 7% annual return would be worth about $1.8M in 30 years. If 1.8M were invested, you could safely withdraw $6000/mo for the rest of your life. Do consider 30years of inflation makes this less than today's dollar. There are long term analyses that show real estate more-or-less keeps track with inflation at 2-4% annual returns. This doesn't consider real estate taxes, maintenance, insurance and the very individual and localized issues with your market and your particular house. Is land limited where you are, increasing your price? Will new development drive down your price? In 30 years, you'll own the house outright. You'll still need to pay property tax and insurance on it, and you'll be getting rental income. Over those 30 years, you can expect to replace a roof, 2-3 hot water heaters, concrete work, several trees, decades of snow shoveling, mowing grass and weeding, your HVAC system, windows and doors, and probably a kitchen and bathroom overhauls. You will have paid about 1.5x the initial price of the mortgage in interest along the way. So you'll have whatever the rental price for your house, monthly (probably almost impossible to predict for a single-family home) plus the market price of your house. (again, very difficult to predict, but could safely say it keeps pace with inflation) minus your expenses. There are scenarios where you could beat the stock market. There are ways to reduce the lifestyle burden of being a landlord. Along the way, should you want to purchase a house for yourself to live in, you'll have to prove the rental income is steady, to qualify for a loan. Having equity in a mortgage gives you something to borrow against, in a HELOC. Of course, you could easily end up owing more than your house is worth in that situation. Personally, I'd stick to investing that money in low-fee index funds.", "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": "6568d63e1e16bc385ef85b971d630528", "text": "\"You mention: High rent places are usually also high property value places. Given the tax incentives, it seems like a good long term idea to grab a house, so if we assume you have the option of working and buying a house in a high CoL or a low CoL city, I think you'd prefer the high cost. Because essentially, after 30 years, you'd have a million dollar house vs a quarter million dollar house. You've captured three quarters of a million dollars in rent, given my napkin math hypothetical. I think you're forgetting about some of the associated costs with \"\"owning\"\" a home, including:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62eedc6dd5f5c6e5b6f0fb1bbee1c9a8", "text": "You're losing money. And a lot of it. Consider this: the inflation is 2-4% a year (officially, depending on your spending pattern your own rate might be quite higher). You earn about 1/2%. I.e.: You're losing 3% a year. Guaranteed. You can do much better without any additional risk. 0.1% on savings account? Why not 0.9%? On-line savings account (Ally, CapitalOne-360, American Express, E*Trade, etc) give much higher rates than what you have. Current Ally rates are 0.9% on a regular savings account. 9 times more than what you have, with no additional risk: its a FDIC insured deposit. You can get a slightly higher rate with CDs (0.97% at the same bank for 12 months deposit). IRA - why is it in CD's? Its the longest term investment you have, that's where you can and should take risks, to maximize your compounding returns. Not doing that is actually more risky to you because you're guaranteeing compounding loss, of the said 3% a year. On average, more volatile stock investments have shown to be not losing money over periods of decades, even if they do lose money over shorter periods. Rental - if you can buy a property that you would pay the same amount of money for as for a comparable rental - you should definitely buy. Your debt will be secured by the property, and since you're paying the same amount or less - you're earning the equity. There's no risk here, just benefits, which again you chose to forgo. In the worst case if you default and walk away from the property you lost exactly (or less) what you would have paid for a rental anyway. 14 years old car may be cheaper than 4 years old to buy, but consider the maintenance, licensing and repairs - will it not some up to more than the difference? In my experience - it is likely to. Bottom line - you think you're risk averse, but you're exactly the opposite of that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ea86135aefc19f735f834aa9cfa4eac0", "text": "\"Pre-edit, Pete mentioned that he feels real estate agents would (a) like you to buy as much house as you afford, and (b) would love to show you three houses and have you choose one. As a real estate agent myself, I believe his warnings were understated. As with any industry, there are good and bad people. Agents are paid to move houses. If the median US home is under $200K, and commissions average say 5%, the $10,000 to be gained is split between the buyer brokerage and selling agent. The $5000 to each is then shared with 'the house.' So, this sale would net me $2500, gross. Move one a week, and the income is great, one per month, not so much. Tire kickers will waste an agent's time for a potential decision to wait another year and continue renting. Their obligation is to tell you the truth, but not to offer financial advice. Remember the mortgage crisis? It seems the banks and brokers aren't watching out for you either. They will tell you what they'll lend you, but not what you can afford. These numbers are worlds apart. I strongly recommend a 20% downpayment. The FHA PMI calculator shows that a 90% LTV (i.e. a 10% downpayment) for a $100K house will cost you $1200/yr in PMI. Think about this. For the $10,000 that you didn't put down, you are paying an extra $1200 each year. This is on top of the interest, so even at 5%, that last $10,000 is costing nearly 17%. If you can't raise that $10K (or whatever 10% is on that house) in cheaper funds, you should hold off. Using the 401(k) loan for this purpose is appropriate, yet emotionally charged. As if suck loans are written by the devil himself. \"\"Buy the biggest house you can\"\"? No. I have a better idea. Buy the smallest place you can tolerate. I have a living room (in addition to family room) that has been used 3 times in 20 years. A dining room we actually use. Twice per year. When your house is 50% too big, you pay 50% more property tax, more utility bills, and more maintenance. Closing costs, commission, etc, isn't cheap, but the lifetime cost of living in a too-big house is a money pit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18e2dbbfbc4a95e3a737de96b732f1da", "text": "You are young so you have time on your side. This allows you to invest in more aggressive investments. I would do the following 1) Contribute at least what your company is willing to match on your 401k, if your company offers a Roth 401k use that instead of the normal 401k (When this becomes available to you) 2) Open a Roth IRA Contribute the maximum to this account ~$5500/year 3) Live below your means, setup a budget and try and save/invest a minimum of 50% of your salary, do not get used to spending more money. With each bonus or salary increase a minimum of 75% of it should go toward your savings/investment. This will keep you from rapidly increasing your spending budget. 3) Invest in real estate (this could be its own post). Being young and not too far out of college you have probably been moving every year and have not accumulated so much stuff that it makes moving difficult. I would utilize your FHA loan slot to buy a multifamily property (2-4 Units) for your first property using only 3.5% down payment (you can put more down if you like). Learn how to analyze properties first and find a great Realtor/Mentor. Then I would continue as a NOMAD investor. Where you move every year into a new owner occupied property and turn the previous into a rental. This allows you to put 3-5% down payment of properties that you would otherwise have to put 20-25% and since you are young you can afford the risk. You should check out this article/website as it is very informative and can show you the returns that you could earn. Young Professional Nomad Good luck I am in a very similar situation", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb9aa2dc9ef070f4af12702db6c0d4ac", "text": "I'll be happy to edit when you provide answers to the question I posed in the comments. Given the choice (and I assume there is no other) I'd take a loan from the 401(k) vs a withdrawal. You withdraw $40K. I'll assume 25% bracket as you're planning at least a $200K house. Hopefully, your taxable income is above $38K, the 25% line for singles. The tax and penalty is 35% total, federal. You net $26K. And you have $40K less in the retirement account. In 40 years, at 10% average growth, that's $1.8M you won't have in your 401(k). And as littleadv stated, no deposits for 6 months, meaning no matching. There's a few more thousand you'll lose. You borrow $20K. Your 401(k) will see a return on the $20k that's better than the short bond account, 4-5% vs less than 1%. You are short $6K, but in return have paid no tax, no penalty, etc. I respect those who are strongly anti-loan, but even they would agree, this is the far lesser of 2 evils. The above is pretty generic, there are better choices. But your CPA friend's advice is nearly as bad as it gets. By the way, the tax you'll save once you have the mortgage has nothing to do with that 10% penalty. Say you bought the house with cash (as many would be happy to do). You'd pay the penalty for the 401(k) withdrawal, but have no mortgage deduction. If you had the 20%, you still have a loan and the deduction, but no penalty for taking his bad advice. My advice is to take that refund and use it to pay the loan faster.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1ce4b2b4cbaed80672312aa784baa096	How does a delta signify the probability of expiring in the money	[ { "docid": "0c40205611d35b83495cc437ffd17e20", "text": "Just for clarification, delta and probability of expiring in the money are not the same thing. What the guy meant was that delta is usually a close enough approximation to the probability. One way to think about it is to look at the probabilities and deltas of In the Money, Out of the Money, and At the Money options. In these cases, the delta and probabilities are about the same. In fact if you look at an options chain with delta and probabilities, you can see that they are all about the same. In other words, there is a linear relationship between delta and probability. Here are a couple links to other answers around the web: Hope this answer helps!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ed7088abc24b19525a88ba3ad77ec32d", "text": "\"When you buy a put on a stock, you buy the right to sell the stock at fixed price, F, that his usually different from the market price, M. You paid a price, P, for the put. Your potential profit, going forward, is represented by the DIFFERENCE you get to collect between your fixed price F, and that market price M, plus the price you paid for the put, or F-(M+P). (This assumes that F>(M+P). P is fixed, but the smaller M gets, the larger the term F-(M+P), and therefore the higher your potential profit from owning the put. So when M \"\"tanks,\"\" the put goes higher. The $395 put is already in the money. If it were settled today, the value would be $395-$376 or $19. This, minus the cost of the put itself, represents your profit. The $365 put is \"\"out of the money.\"\" The stock has to fall $11 more before the put is exercised. But if the stock went down 8 points today, that is less than the $19 difference at the start of the day. Because there is time between now and October, there is a chance for the stock to go down further, thereby going into the money. The current value of the put is represented by this \"\"chance.\"\" Obviously, the chances of the stock going down $11 more (from today) is greater than the chance of it going down $19 more. On the other hand, the closer it gets to the expiration date, the less an out of the money put is worth. It's a race between the stock's fall, and the time to expiration.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e579c480f632018d2e79008cd1ccaa4b", "text": "Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e404451f53a6f064448e7dc1079355d0", "text": "It really centers on the probability of your position falling to $0 and your level of comfort if that were to happen. There are a plethora of situations that could cause an option contract to become worthless. The application of leverage to a position also increases the risk. Zero risk would be an FDIC insured savings account, high risk would be buying options on margin, and there's a very wide grey area in between. I agree that the whole process of assigning a risk level is dubious at best. As you say, it seems using past data could help assign a risk level, look to beta values if you believe in that. The problem here is the main disclaimer in use is that past performance cannot be relied upon for future gains. As an aside, if the US government files bankruptcy you'll have a whole host of more immediate problems than the value of your t-bills. At that point dollars would have been a risky investment.", "title": "" }, { "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": "6102ca35a6adf578632c2b0f37dadc2f", "text": "\"Below I will try to explain two most common Binomial Option Pricing Models (BOPM) used. First of all, BOPM splits time to expiry into N equal sub-periods and assumes that in each period the underlying security price may rise or fall by a known proportion, so the value of an option in any sub-period is a function of its possible values in the following sub period. Therefore the current value of an option is found by working backwards from expiry date through sub-periods to current time. There is not enough information in the question from your textbook so we may assume that what you are asked to do is to find a value of a call option using just a Single Period BOPM. Here are two ways of doing this: First of all let's summarize your information: Current Share Price (Vs) = $70 Strike or exercise price (X) = $60 Risk-free rate (r) = 5.5% or 0.055 Time to maturity (t) = 12 months Downward movement in share price for the period (d) = $65 / $70 = 0.928571429 Upward movement in share price for the period (u) = 1/d = 1/0.928571429 = 1.076923077 \"\"u\"\" can be translated to $ multiplying by Vs => 1.076923077 * $70 = $75.38 which is the maximum probable share price in 12 months time. If you need more clarification here - the minimum and maximum future share prices are calculated from stocks past volatility which is a measure of risk. But because your textbook question does not seem to be asking this - you probably don't have to bother too much about it yet. Intrinsic Value: Just in case someone reading this is unclear - the Value of an option on maturity is the difference between the exercise (strike) price and the value of a share at the time of the option maturity. This is also called an intrinsic value. Note that American Option can be exercised prior to it's maturity in this case the intrinsic value it simply the diference between strike price and the underlying share price at the time of an exercise. But the Value of an option at period 0 (also called option price) is a price you would normally pay in order to buy it. So, say, with a strike of $60 and Share Price of $70 the intrinsic value is $10, whereas if Share Price was $50 the intrinsic value would be $0. The option price or the value of a call option in both cases would be fixed. So we also need to find intrinsic option values when price falls to the lowest probable and rises to the maximum probable (Vcd and Vcu respectively) (Vcd) = $65-$60 = $5 (remember if Strike was $70 then Vcd would be $0 because nobody would exercise an option that is out of the money) (Vcu) = $75.38-$60 = $15.38 1. Setting up a hedge ratio: h = Vs(u-d)/(Vcu-Vcd) h = 70(1.076923077-0.928571429)/(15.38-5) = 1 That means we have to write (sell) 1 option for each share purchased in order to hedge the risks. You can make a simple calculation to check this, but I'm not going to go into too much detail here as the equestion is not about hedging. Because this position is risk-free in equilibrium it should pay a risk-free rate (5.5%). Then, the formula to price an option (Vc) using the hedging approach is: (Vs-hVc)(e^(rt))=(Vsu-hVcu) Where (Vc) is the value of the call option, (h) is the hedge ratio, (Vs) - Current Share Price, (Vsu) - highest probable share price, (r) - risk-free rate, (t) - time in years, (Vcu) - value of a call option on maturity at the highest probable share price. Therefore solving for (Vc): (70-1Vc)(e^(0.055(12/12))) = (75.38-115.38) => (70-Vc)1.056540615 = 60 => 70-Vc = 60/1.056540615 => Vc = 70 - (60/1.056540615) Which is similar to the formula given in your textbook, so I must assume that using 1+r would be simply a very close approximation of the formula above. Then it is easy to find that Vc = 13.2108911402 ~ $13.21 2. Risk-neutral valuation: Another way to calculate (Vc) is using a risk-neutral approach. We first introduce a variable (p) which is a risk-neutral probability of an increase in share price. p = (e^(rt)-d)/(u-d) so in your case: p = (1.056540615-0.928571429)/(1.076923077-0.928571429) = 0.862607107 Therefore using (p) the (Vc) would be equal: Vc = [pVcu+(1-p)Vcd]/(e^(rt)) => Vc = [(0.86260710715.38)+(0.137392893*5)]/1.056540615 => Vc = 13.2071229185 ~ $13.21 As you can see it is very close to the hedging approach. I hope this answers your questions. Also bear in mind that there is much more to the option pricing than this. The most important topics to cover are: Multi-period BOPM Accounting for Dividends Black-Scholes-Merton Option Pricing Model\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "29a267077fa214cac629cbb714d602ce", "text": "[] As you can see from the graphs above, as absolute distance from ATM (At The Money) increases, the ratio represented by Delta begins to approach 0:1 or 1:1. Meaning, as Delta approaches 1 the option price moves up 1 dollar for every 1 dollar the stock price moves up. As Delta approaches 0 the option price does not move as the stock price moves. As the absolute distance from ATM increases Gamma approaches zero (0). Meaning, as the price of the option increases or decrease the change in delta is at its highest as the option price is nearest the money. As the price of the option moves away from the money, in either direction, it changes less drastically. Interestingly, Delta is the first derivative of the value of the option price with respect to the underlying asset price. And Gamma is the first derivative of Delta. Definition of Delta Definition of Gamma", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dbefd691fe01fda159ed6044bff5b448", "text": "Here is what I could find on the net: http://education.wallstreetsurvivor.com/options-symbol-changes-coming-february-12th-2010 So it sounds like it does not affect how you invest in options but only how you look them up. I remember using a Bloomberg terminal and it wasn't clear what the expiry date of the option you were looking at was. It looks like the new quote system addresses this. HTH.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b69527e2707e44cc701c57fc239b10a", "text": "\"It's a form of debt issued by the United States Treasury. As the name implies, a 10-year note is held for 10 years (after which you get the face value in cash), and it pays interest twice per year. It's being used in the calculator to stand for a readily available, medium-term, nearly risk-free investment, as a means of \"\"discounting\"\" the value that the company gains. The explanation for why the discounting is done can be found on the page you linked. As a Canadian you could use the yield of comparable Canadian treasury securities as quoted by Bank of Canada (which seem to have had the bottom fall out since the new year), although I don't suppose American notes would be hard for a Canadian investor to come by, so if you wanted to be conservative you could use the US figure as long as it's higher.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "32ca0287dec65ed058c50e3065c832de", "text": "\"Suppose the stock is $41 at expiry. The graph says I will lose money. I think I paid $37.20 for (net debit) at this price. I would make money, not lose. What am I missing? The `net debit' doesn't have anything to do with your P/L graph. Your graph is also showing your profit and loss for NOW and only one expiration. Your trade has two expirations, and I don't know which one that graph is showing. That is the \"\"mystery\"\" behind that graph. Regardless, your PUTs are mitigating your loss as you would expect, if you didn't have the put you would simply lose more money at that particular price range. If you don't like that particular range then you will have to consider a different contract. it was originally a simple covered call, I added a put to protect from stock going lower.. Your strike prices are all over the place and NBIX has a contract at every whole number.... there is nothing simple about this trade. You typically won't find an \"\"always profitable\"\" combination of options. Also, changes in volatility can distort your projects greatly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43e2cf9d5d248069de18ca057df46753", "text": "\"First lets understand what convexity means: Convexity - convexity refers to non-linearities in a financial model. In other words, if the price of an underlying variable changes, the price of an output does not change linearly, but depends on the second derivative (or, loosely speaking, higher-order terms) of the modeling function. Geometrically, the model is no longer flat but curved, and the degree of curvature is called the convexity. Okay so for us idiots this means: if the price of ABC (we will call P) is determined by X and Y. Then if X decreases by 5 then the value of P might not necessarily decrease by 5 but instead is also dependent on Y (wtf$%#! is Y?, who cares, its not important for us to know, we can understand what convexity is without knowing the math behind it). So if we chart this the line would look like a curve. (clearly this is an over simplification of the math involved but it gives us an idea) So now in terms of options, convexity is also known as gamma, it will probably be easier to talk about gamma instead of using a confusing word like convexity(gamma is the convexity of options). So lets define Gamma: Gamma - The rate of change for delta with respect to the underlying asset's price. So the gamma of an option indicates how the delta of an option will change relative to a 1 point move in the underlying asset. In other words, the Gamma shows the option delta's sensitivity to market price changes. or Gamma shows how volatile an option is relative to movements in the underlying asset. So the answer is: If we are long gamma (convexity of an option) it simply means we are betting on higher volatility in the underlying asset(in your case the VIX). Really that simple? Well kinda, to fully understand how this works you really need to understand the math behind it. But yes being long gamma means being long volatility. An example of being \"\"long gamma\"\" is a \"\"long straddle\"\" Side Note: I personally do trade the VIX and it can be very volatile, you can make or lose lots of money very quickly trading VIX options. Some resources: What does it mean to be \"\"long gamma\"\" in options trading? Convexity(finance) Long Gamma – How to Make a Long Gamma Position Work for You Delta - Investopedia Straddles & Strangles - further reading if your interested. Carry(investment) - even more reading.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84db8928e71914d29c1ede1652c8857d", "text": "That looks like a Bloomberg terminal. And like @Jer said, it would appear to be the symbol for the S&P 500 E-mini index future. Although it doesn't look right all on its own, as it should have a modifier indicating the month (or quarter) of expiry. However, since it appears on a Bloomberg terminal in the image, I checked a source for Bloomberg Symbol Lists and found one of two possibilities for ES1. It is most likely the S&P 500 e-mini future: CME E-Mini Futures E-Mini S&P 500 ES1 INDEX the only alternative was LIFFE 3 Month Euroswiss ES1 COMDTY I think the former is far more likely, as the latter has the COMDTY commodity tag instead of INDEX as the tag in the image. Also, it isn't the ESI which pertains to Ethibel Sustainability Indices and something with the Eurozone (also Bloomberg Indices). Here we go! Excerpt straight is from a presentation presentation on charting from a business school PDF see pp.12-13, and appears to be a straight excerpt from September 2007 Bloomberg documentation. I didn't know any other way to imbed it besides taking a screen shot then uploading to imgur. Or of course, see pp.12-13 in the referenced PDF I've attached. See", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b2faf32fa6949c64df1a9126366fa459", "text": "NL7 is right and his B-S reference, a good one. Time decay happens to occur in a way that 2X the time gives an option 1.414X (the square root of 2) times the value, so half the time means about .707 of the value. This valuation model should help the trader decide on exactly how far out to go for a given trade.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c613135e5b27ab8a5f96d0ea3560e5e", "text": "\"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4b0148f3cdecb6df7692dbccf3fa8ad", "text": "An expiration 2 years out will have Sqr(2) (yes the square root of 2!) times the premium of the 1 year expiration. So if the option a year out sell for $1.00, two is only $1.41. And if the stock trades for $10, but the strike is $12, why aren't you just waiting for expiration to write the next one?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef655d48b8cebc3d4b75cdb5c3508aa5", "text": "\"It's talked about quite often among more experienced investors. They were/ are used extensively by hedge funds. Keep in mind that if your option expires when not \"\"in the money\"\" you lose the premium you paid for the purchase of the option. That's where the risk comes in. I've grown really interested in options over the last couple months. Check out McMillan's Guide to Options. It's generally thought of as the quintessential beginners guide to understanding options. Good luck!\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ccb2dbbc60f740ac5f22f9f20f3b60d6	Where to start with finding good companies to invest?	[ { "docid": "b8a12e44cf5ee98e06bdcd04d98f3b1e", "text": "\"There obviously is not such a list of companies, because if there were the whole world would immediately invest in them. Their price would rise like a rocket and they would not be undervalued anymore. Some people think company A should be worth x per share, some people think it should be worth y. If the share price is currently higher than what someone thinks it should be, they sell it, and if it is lower than they think it should be they buy it. The grand effect of this all is that the current market price of the share is more or less the average of what all investors together think it should currently be worth. If you buy a single stock, hoping that it's undervalued and will rise, you may be right but you may equally well be wrong. It's smarter to diversify over lots of stocks to reduce the impact of this risk, it evens out. There are \"\"analysts\"\" who try to make a guess of which stocks will do better, and they give paid advice or you can invest in their funds -- but they invariably do worse than the average of the market as a whole, over the long term. So the best advice for amateurs is to invest in index funds that cover a huge range of companies and try to keep their costs very low.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "cdf7ac62637421a1a1321ae8cdd080a4", "text": "Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18fdf9e3dfc67a60abdd1702ae7f00b6", "text": "Start at Investopedia. Get basic clarification on all financial terms and in some cases in detail. But get a book. One recommendation would be Hull. It is a basic book, but quite informative. Likewise you can get loads of material targeted at programmers. Wilmott's Forum is a fine place to find coders as well as finance guys.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23b8c89a673ed3d13114a805d1a96364", "text": "If you're researching a publicly traded company in the USA, you can search the company filings with the SEC. Clicking 'Filings' should take you here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3adfcbe31a6b9bb6731237d8769eecb4", "text": "For the mechanices/terms of stock investing, I recommend Learn to Earn by Peter Lynch. I also like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing by John Bogle. It explains why indexing is the best choice for most people. For stock picking, a good intro is The Little Book of Value Investing by Chris Brown. And then there is The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. IMO, this is the bible of investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b81f264b75ed4b2f443dd090e38ece66", "text": "Every listed company needs to maintain book of accounts, when you are investing in companies you would have to look at what is stated in the books and along with other info decide to invest in it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0a05550158e54c1fac6708fe437e2345", "text": "\"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1a6d5b5502902f159e503bd5fe91ad0", "text": "\"If you don't want to do the deep research on each individual company, you might want to look at index funds and similar \"\"whole market\"\" investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c9ad2bc428ae33590e1bcedd20e21e8", "text": "Research the company. Obtain and read their current and past financial statements. Find and read news stories about them. Look for patterns and draw conclusions. Or diversify to the point where one company failing doesn't hurt you significantly. Or both.", "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": "ba932ab7edd82cd583be7d0ce813cdbc", "text": "The most significant capability that an investor must have is the knowledge on the way to look for the high dividend stocks. Through accumulating good information relating to towards the stocks that you are finding is the better way of getting the perfect and profitable investments. It is really important to learn what makes a particular stock better and superior compared to other. Traders are essential to start a complete analysis and investigation before getting their money on any business projects. Obviously, investors certainly want to have an investment that could guarantee an effective expense for a very reasonable cost the moment of getting it. The chances of crucial to invest in a market that you might be aware and qualified about. So, creating a comparison and compare in one business to a different is totally essential so as to find the high dividend stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "becdcfc45a8504a311011b12d5987a2d", "text": "When you start to buy stock, don't buy too little of it! Stocks come at a cost (you pay a commission), and you need to maintain a deposit, you have to take these costs into account when buying to calculate your break even point for selling. Don't buy stock for less than 1.500€ Also, diversify. Buy stock from different sectors and from different geographies. Spread your risks. Start buying 'defensive' stocks (food, pharma, energy), then move to more dynamic sectors (telecom, informatics), lastly buy stock from risky sectors that are not mature markets (Internet businesses). Lastly, look for high dividend. That's always nice at the end of the year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2525b805740b3acf6455665246c8a72e", "text": "\"First thing I'd say is don't start with investing. The foundation of solid finances is cash flow. Making more than you spend, reliably; knowing where your money goes; having a system that works for you to make sure you make more than you spend. Until you have that, your focus may as well be on getting there, because you can't fix much else about your finances until you fix this. A number you want to know is your percentage of income saved, and a good goal for that is about 15%, with 10-12% going to retirement savings and the rest to shorter-term goals and emergency fund and so forth. (Of course the right percentage here depends on your goals and situation, but for most people this is a kind of minimum savings rate to be in good shape.) Focus on your savings rate. This is your profitability, if you view yourself as a business. If it's crappy or negative, your finances will be a mess. Two ways to improve it are to spend less or to improve your earnings power. Doing both is even better. The book Your Money or Your Life by Dominguez and Robin is good for showing how to obsessively focus on cash flow, even though you may not share their zeal for early retirement. A simpler exercise than what they recommend: take 3 months of your checking and credit card statements, go through each expenditure and put them in a spreadsheet column, SUM() that column. Then add up 3 months of after-tax paychecks. Divide both numbers by three and compare. (The 3 months is to average out your spending, which probably varies a lot by month.) After positive cash flow and savings rate, the next thing I'd go through is insurance. Risk management for what you have. This can include checking you have all the important insurance coverages (homeowner's/renter's, auto, potentially umbrella, term life, disability, and of course health insurance, are some highlights); and also adjusting all your policies to be most cost-effective, which usually means raising the deductible if you have a good emergency fund. Often you can raise the deductible on policies you have, and use the savings to add more catastrophe coverage (such as term life if you didn't have it, or boosting the liability protection on your homeowner's, or whatever). Remember, cover catastrophes as cheaply and comprehensively as possible, but don't worry about reimbursement for non-catastrophic expenses. I like this book, Smart and Simple Financial Strategies for Busy People by Jane Bryant Quinn, because it covers all the main personal finance topics, not just investing; and because it is smart and simple. All the main stuff to think about is in the one book and the advice is solid and uncomplicated. Investing can truly be dead easy; most people would be fine with this advice: Honestly, I do micro-optimize and undermine my investing, and I'm guessing most people on this forum do. But it's not something I could defend objectively as a good use of time. It probably is necessary to do some reading to feel financially literate and confident in an investment plan, but the reading isn't really because a good plan is complicated, it's more to understand all the complicated things that you don't need to do, since that's how you'll know not to do them. ;-) Especially when salespeople and publications and TV are telling you over and over and over that you need to know a bunch of crap and do a bunch of things. People who have a profitable \"\"business of me\"\" are the ones who end up with a lot of money. Not people who spend a lot of time screwing with investments. (People who get rich investing invest professionally - as their \"\"business of me\"\" - they don't goof around with their 401k after work.) Financial security is all about your savings rate, i.e. your personal profitability. No shortcuts, other than lotteries and rich uncles.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "16ebfc4dffbf08903248213b7b2d8187", "text": "\"There isn't really a clear way to answer this question objectively. I'd offer my opinion that yes it is a good idea. You don't need very much money to start (I began investing on $200). To answer your second question, no there are never any \"\"sure things.\"\" Instead on focusing on making money, focus on learning how the markets work. Pick a few companies you know (perhaps in an industry you are familiar with) and buy one or two shares at a time. Watch the prices evolve over time and make note of the changes and always ask the question \"\"why did it go up/down\"\". Good luck.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bc709e0c92e4abf2f119a1a3f385d46", "text": "You can go to the required company's website and check out their investor section. Here is an example from GE and Apple.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6364703e78f43605fee86e784493e31a", "text": "\"If you can afford the time and are looking for more deep, and fun, investment tips, check out http://gurufocus.com. Great for more fundamental analysis of \"\"Intelligent Investor\"\" type Benjamin Graham-style businesses. No use scatter-shooting the stock exchange hoping to find good value businesses. Even blue-chips have an increasingly uncertain future (except IMHO certain world dominators like KO, WMT, XO and MCD).\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3902c877d6902a50dbb12b5381b69bef	Is there legal reason for restricting someone under 59-1/2 from an in-service rollover from a 401K to an IRA?	[ { "docid": "bed338db9cdf1dd0f3be10e06e8adaf3", "text": "\"Yes, this is restricted by law. In plain language, you can find it on the IRS website (under the heading \"\"When Can a Retirement Plan Distribute Benefits?\"\"): 401(k), profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans Employee elective deferrals (and earnings, except in a hardship distribution) -- the plan may permit a distribution when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach age 59½; or •suffer a hardship. Employer profit-sharing or matching contributions -- the plan may permit a distribution of your vested accrued benefit when you: •terminate employment (by death, disability, retirement or other severance from employment); •reach the age specified in the plan (any age); or •suffer a hardship or experience another event specified in the plan. Form of benefit - the plan may pay benefits in a single lump-sum payment as well as offer other options, including payments over a set period of time (such as 5 or 10 years) or a purchased annuity with monthly lifetime payments. Source: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/when-can-a-retirement-plan-distribute-benefits If you want to actually see it in the law, check out 26 USC 401(k)(2)(B)(i), which lists the circumstances under which a distribution can be made. You can get the full text, for example, here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/401 I'm not sure what to say about the practice of the company that you mentioned in your question. Maybe the law was different then?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c78db55b0acf1739683447af345420ff", "text": "You're going to find a lot of conflicting or vague answers on the internet because there are a lot of plan design elements that are set by the plan sponsor (employer). There are laws that mandate certain elements and dictate certain requirements of plan sponsors, many of these laws are related to record keeping and fiduciary duty. There is a lot of latitude for plan sponsors to allow or restrict employee actions even if there is no law against that activity. There are different rules mandated for employee pre-tax contributions, employee post-tax contributions, and employer contributions. You have more flexibility with regard to the employer contributions and any post tax contributions you may have made; your plan may allow an in-service distribution of those two items before you reach age 59.5. While your HR department (like most -all- HR departments) is not staffed with ERISA attorneys and CPAs it is your HR department and applicable plan documents that will lay out what an employee is permitted to do under the plan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5aa979140c977b298717a423bd1af39", "text": "\"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess: that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a \"\"distribution\"\", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions). My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413 As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers. I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules. I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law. There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1930c68a28a19e4e2979740472fa1ec1", "text": "This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a05b4763ad0d4ff9cd08035c8bbfd6ed", "text": "\"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cda7eea9124be207c47508a4ae82b316", "text": "\"we can then start taking penalty free withdrawals from it? There's no \"\"we\"\" in IRA. There's \"\"I\"\". That stands for \"\"Individual\"\". So your wife's age has no influence whatsoever on your ability to make qualified distributions from your IRA. The reason courts order distributions from IRAs is due to the community property laws of various States or other considerations that make spouses entitled to the amounts in the IRAs. However, you're talking about family law here, not tax law. For Federal tax purposes, a distribution ordered by the court doesn't trigger penalty (but is taxable), but any other distribution has to follow the regular qualification criteria.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59e13725973edcc29798c079ca8b938c", "text": "\"Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k. A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" (not a roth). Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k. I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax. Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c54146549ea8213426752bdf6109208", "text": "\"I spent some time searching, and couldn't find the answer written explicitly in IRS regulations. What I did find was this chart from the irs showing that nonqualified distributions from a Roth 401k are pro-rated between contributions and earnings. It is well documented that you can't withdraw any money early or tax free (even contributions) from a Roth 401k (\"\"Designated Roth Account\"\" in IRS parlance) that has made any money. source You can do a direct rollover from a \"\"Designated Roth Account\"\" to a Roth IRA and the basis describing contributions vs. earnings is preserved. source And there is plenty of evidence showing you can withdraw contributions from a Roth IRA without penalty. source All that being said, I can't find anything from the IRS that says this is a legitimate strategy.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab078a1426cf4d4ad2c20cf55fc1744c", "text": "\"Your funds are in a retirement account. Withdrawals from your IRA will be penalized if you withdraw before you turn 59.5 years old, and you appear to be decades away from that age. The general advice I would give you is to pick a \"\"target year fund\"\" that targets the year you turn 59.5. The stock market is more volatile, but its average gains will protect you from inflation just eating your funds. Bonds are in counterpoint to your stocks - more stable, and protecting you from the chance that stocks dip right before you want to withdraw. Target year funds start with higher amounts of stock, and gradually rebalance towards bonds over time. Thus, you take your market risks earlier while you can benefit from the market's gains, and then have stability when you actually would want to retire and depend on the savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fb9d030ac35296ba5c9fae89e43b890a", "text": "Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3b7de5e740d5094e8061e5b6424c1618", "text": "\"Does your company offer a 401(k) and are you taking maximum advantage of it? 2015 limit is $18,000, an extra $5,500 if you are 50 or older. The RMD shouldn't be too large, it depends on your age, of course. You're in no worse shape than anyone hitting age 70-1/2 and having to start taking their RMDs. If you are younger, your RMDs start pretty low. If I look at Pub 590, I find a 50 year old starts with a 34.2 divisor, less than 3% each year. At 60, it's 25.2, just under 4%. Edit - someone around 30 will have a divisor around 53.3 the first year. Just under 2%. I don't know what you consider \"\"sizable,\"\" but much above $300K in that IRA and you'll have more come out than you can fund into a Roth. Regardless of the amount, the RMD is taxable. You just need to pay the tax from other funds if you wish to keep the money invested as it was. You will pay the tax at your marginal rate, and that's it. This is the one downside of the inherited IRA, unlike regular money, it doesn't escape taxes. But, your dad put it in pre-tax (right?) so the amount you got is larger for that fact. I'm sorry for your loss.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcb9f17b9d27ac5ab74a948bb20d0bdf", "text": "Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "126b716be4a8d598b0d3a01391be7562", "text": "You read it right. Todd's warning is well taken. I don't know the numbers involved, but have a brilliant suggestion that may help. A Solo 401(k) is simple to qualify for. Any bit of declared side income will do. Once the account is set up, a transfer from IRAs is simple. The Solo 401(k) can offer a loan provision as any other 401(k), and you can borrow up to 50% (max of $50K) for any reason with a 5 year payback. The standard rate is Prime+1%, the fee is minimal usually $50-$100. All the warnings of IRA 'loans' apply, but the risk of job loss (the largest objection to 401 loans) isn't there. The fact that you have 6 months to set this up is part of what prompts this suggestion. Note: Any strategies like this aren't for everyone. There are folk who need to access quick cash, and this solves the issue in two ways, both low rate and simple access. Phil already stated he is confident to return the money, the only thing that prompted my answer is there's real risk the 60 days a bit too short for any business deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b2ed6b049cd6fb9009865a6828bfd35", "text": "If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26868b669bb40e26f140aa5df42a4353", "text": "\"One reason is that you can trade in the IRA without incurring incremental taxes along the way. This may be especially important if you intend to shift your portfolio allocation as you approach retirement. For instance, gradually selling stocks and buying bonds can incur taxes if you do it in a taxable account (if you do it while you have other income and thus may face capital gains taxes). Also, if you have mutual funds in a taxable account, they may distribute capital gains to you that you'll owe taxes on, but holding the funds in an IRA will shield you from that. There are also some other side benefits to IRAs because they are considered to \"\"not count\"\" for certain purposes when determining what you're worth. For instance, if you go bankrupt, you could be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts to pay your creditors, whereas IRAs are protected in many cases. Likewise, if you try to get financial aid to pay for college for your kids, money in an IRA won't be counted among your assets in determining your aid eligibility, potentially giving your kids access to more aid money. Finally, an especially prominent benefit is, paradoxically, the early withdrawal penalty. For many people, part of the purpose of an IRA is to \"\"lock away\"\" their money and prevent themselves from accessing it until retirement. Early withdrawal penalties provide a concrete consequence that psychologically deters them from raiding their retirement savings willy-nilly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a98b9a5df8ec77a1a0a4dd1ca61e5c50", "text": "Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "980789da5abf6464c0e7ff07ef72bc5e", "text": "\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fe6c62e0a4a3b86b3c7b77beb28cbd57", "text": "The shareholders elect the board of directors who in turn appoint a CEO. The CEO is responsible for the overall running of the company. To answer your specific questions: Yes, Steve Jobs could make decisions that are harmful to the well-being of the company. However, it's the responsibility of the board of directors to keep his decisions and behavior in check. They will remove him from his position if they feel he could be a danger to the company.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ebcc44d123862c35c909135878666f03	Do ETF dividends make up for fees?	[ { "docid": "ed0ed68df5683cfbdc67e5ce8577bcd3", "text": "Any ETF has expenses, including fees, and those are taken out of the assets of the fund as spelled out in the prospectus. Typically a fund has dividend income from its holdings, and it deducts the expenses from the that income, and only the net dividend is passed through to the ETF holder. In the case of QQQ, it certainly will have dividend income as it approximates a large stock index. The prospectus shows that it will adjust daily the reported Net Asset Value (NAV) to reflect accrued expenses, and the cash to pay them will come from the dividend cash. (If the dividend does not cover the expenses, the NAV will decline away from the modeled index.) Note that the NAV is not the ETF price found on the exchange, but is the underlying value. The price tends to track the NAV fairly closely, both because investors don't want to overpay for an ETF or get less than it is worth, and also because large institutions may buy or redeem a large block of shares (to profit) when the price is out of line. This will bring the price closer to that of the underlying asset (e.g. the NASDAQ 100 for QQQ) which is reflected by the NAV.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6579527da0c9cfbe380c490ca49de854", "text": "\"It depends. Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio. You could also ask \"\"why would I care?\"\" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "56572fa8686195ba428b686c2c1bfa5e", "text": "Victor, Yes the drop in price does completely cancel the dividend at first. However, as others have noted, there are other forces working on the price as well. If dividends were pointless then the following scenario would be true: Let's assume, hypothetically, two identical stocks, only one of which pays a 2% annual dividend quarterly. At the end of the year we would expect the share price of the dividend stock to be 2% lower than the non-dividend stock. And an equal investment in both stocks would yield exactly the same amount of money. So that is a hypothetical, and here is real market example: I compared, i.e. took the ratio of Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO) closing price to the S&P 500 Index closing price from sep 9, (2010-2014), after accounting for the VOO 2013 split. The VOO pays a quarterly dividend(about 2%/year), the S&P is an index, hence no dividend. The VOO share price, reduced each quarter by the dividend, still grew more than the S&P each year except 2012 to 2013, but looking at the entire 4yr period the VOO share price grew 80.3987% while S&P grew 80.083% (1/3 of 1% more for VOO). VOO does drop about 1/2% relative to S&P on every ex date, but obviously it makes it up. There are other forces working on VOO. VOO is trade-able, therefore subject to supply/demand pressures, while the S&P 500 is not. So for the VOO ETF the data does not indicate pointless dividends but instead implies dividends are free money. StockCharts.com supports this. S&P500 for last 1244 days (9/8/2010) shows 90% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?%24SPX while VOO for last 1244 days shows 105% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VOO", "title": "" }, { "docid": "266ea3f62c2d646c5f51f9743c8634ca", "text": "I asked this question in this weeks question thread. But I'll ask it here too. If the buy side here is an etf and has an expense ratio of x, does the rebate offset the expense or is accounted some other way? Another way, Is the rebate profit for the fund manager or the fund? Does it get disclosed somehow?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e60c30bb513745a94722a086cfa2fad4", "text": "\"What you seem to want is a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP). That's typically offered by the broker, not by the ETF itself. Essentially this is a discounted purchase of new shares when you're dividend comes out. As noted in the answer by JoeTaxpayer, you'll still need to pay tax on the dividend, but that probably won't be a big problem unless you've got a lot of dividends. You'll pay that out of some other funds when it's due. All DRIPs (not just for ETFs) have potential to complicate computation of your tax basis for eventual sale, so be aware of that. It doesn't have to be a show-stopper for you, but it's something to consider before you start. It's probably less of a problem now than it used to be since brokers now have to report your basis on the 1099-B in the year of sale, reducing your administrative burden (if you trust them to get it right). Here's a list of brokerages that were offering this from a top-of-the-search-list article that I found online: Some brokerages, including TD Ameritrade, Vanguard, Scottrade, Schwab and, to a lesser extent, Etrade, offer ETF DRIPs—no-cost dividend reinvestment programs. This is very helpful for busy clients. Other brokerages, such as Fidelity, leave ETF dividend reinvestment to their clients. Source: http://www.etf.com/sections/blog/23595-your-etf-has-drip-drag.html?nopaging=1 Presumably the list is not constant. I almost didn't included but I thought the wide availability (at least as of the time of the article's posting) was more interesting than any specific broker on it. You'll want to do some research before you choose a broker to do this. Compare fees for sure, but also take into account other factors like how soon after the dividend they do the purchase (is it the ex-date, the pay date, or something else?). A quick search online should net you several decent articles with more information. I just searched on \"\"ETF DRIP\"\" to check it out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d37d9a994626f347749725d7d6066a17", "text": "With the disclaimer that I am not a technician, I'd answer yes, it does. SPY (for clarification, an ETF that reflects the S&P 500 index) has dividends, and earnings, therefore a P/E and dividend yield. It would follow that the tools technicians use, such as moving averages, support and resistance levels also apply. Keep in mind, each and every year, one can take the S&P stocks and break them up, into quintiles or deciles based on return and show that not all stock move in unison. You can break up by industry as well which is what the SPDRs aim to do, and observe the movement of those sub-groups. But, no, not all the stocks will perform the way the index is predicted to. (Note - If a technician wishes to correct any key points here, you are welcome to add a note, hopefully, my answer was not biased)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c382ab89f323f5aa80febf3f096bc883", "text": "A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d6c3b768179744cbae7673ecd47ecee", "text": "The expense ratio is stated as an annual figure but is often broken down to be taken out periodically of the fund's assets. In traditional mutual funds, there will be a percent of assets in cash that can be nibbled to cover the expenses of running the fund and most deposits into the fund are done in cash. In an exchange-traded fund, new shares are often created through creation/redemption units which are baskets of securities that make things a bit different. In the case of an ETF, the dividends may be reduced by the expense ratio as the trading price follows the index usually. Expense ratios can vary as in some cases there may be initial waivers on new funds for a time period to allow them to build an asset base. There is also something to be said for economies of scale that allow a fund to have its expense ratio go down over time as it builds a larger asset base. These would be noted in the prospectus and annual reports of the fund to some degree. SPDR Annual Report on page 312 for the Russell 3000 ETF notes its expense ratio over the past 5 years being the following: 0.20% 0.20% 0.22% 0.20% 0.21% Thus, there is an example of some fluctuation if you want a real world example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c73f3efee233cebf09efa70a897dd2c", "text": "It may be true for a bond fund. But it is not true for bond etf. Bond etf will drop by the same amount when it distribute dividend on ex-dividend date.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "360b618f715186825da5a27f9163b026", "text": "Your ETF will return the interest as dividends. If you hold the ETF on the day before the Ex-Dividend date, you will get the dividend. If you sell before that, you will not. Note that at least one other answer to this question is wrong. You do NOT need to hold on the Record date. There is usually 2 days (or so) between the ex-date and the record date, which corresponds to the number of days it takes for your trade to settle. See the rules as published by the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55a0bf6bc65d807b555cb98d1d2a6053", "text": "Your best bet is to remove the excess contribution. Your broker should have forms to do that. There is a 6% tax on the excess contributions for each year that it remains uncorrected. It would be better to just eat the $25 fee and get rid of any future headaches.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "43c7802718feab88d1054220636e2c0d", "text": "Some other suggestions: Index-tracking mutual funds. These have the same exposure as ETFs, but may have different costs; for example, my investment manager (in the UK) charges a transaction fee on ETFs, but not funds, but caps platform fees on ETFs and not funds! Target date funds. If you are saving for a particular date (often retirement, but could also be buying a house, kids going to college, mid-life crisis motorbike purchase, a luxury cruise to see an eclipse, etc), these will automatically rebalance the investment from risk-tolerant (ie equities) to risk-averse (ie fixed income) as the date approaches. You can get reasonably low fees from Vanguard, and i imagine others. Income funds/ETFs, focusing on stocks which are expected to pay a good dividend. The idea is that a consistent dividend helps smooth out volatility in prices, giving you a more consistent return. Historically, that worked pretty well, but given fees and the current low yields, it might not be smart right now. That said Vanguard Equity Income costs 0.17%, and i think yields 2.73%, which isn't bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "418c1aba4dd73fbeabded92cc00ddb0c", "text": "The question is valid, you just need to work backwards. After how much money-time will the lower expense offset the one time fee? Lower expenses will win given the right sum of money and right duration for the investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21b0a09f26272db9528e08a4a7e3437a", "text": "\"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b8333e65a4904eda82fab6b725587ca", "text": "Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95bd051eec913747fac08c2007034758", "text": "\"Dividends can also be automatically reinvested in your stock holding through a DRIP plan (see the wikipedia link for further details, wiki_DRIP). Rather than receiving the dividend money, you \"\"buy\"\" additional stock shares your with dividend money. The value in the DRIP strategy is twofold. 1) your number of shares increases without paying transaction fees, 2) you increase the value of your holding by increasing number of shares. In the end, the RIO can be quite substantial due to the law of compounding interest (though here in the form of dividends). Talk with your broker (brokerage service provider) to enroll your dividend receiving stocks in a DRIP.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6dbb192aac9096a004b081e5518c1263", "text": "There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
31eb3d8bcb97f13930c318e7fd8222db	IRR vs. Interest Rates	[ { "docid": "57d4127f36956d651366ce1fbfaec39e", "text": "Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d9a638edb28c13980a548d2a47c26aad", "text": "IRR is not subjective, this is a response to @Laythesmack, to his remark that IRR is subjective. Not that I feel a need to defend my position, but rather, I'm going to explain his. My company offered stock at a 15% discount. We would have money withheld from pay, and twice per year buy at that discount. Coworkers said it was a 15% gain. I offered some math. I started by saying that 100/85 was 17.6%, and that was in fact, the gain. But, the funds were held by the company for an average of 3 months, not 6, so that gain occurred in 3 months and I did the math 1.176^4 and resulted in 91.5% annual return. This is IRR. It's not that it's subjective, but it assumes the funds continue to be invested fully during the time. In our case the 91.5% was real in one sense, yet no one doubled their money in just over a year. Was the 91% useless? Not quite. It simply meant to me that coworkers who didn't participate were overlooking the fact that if they borrowed money at a reasonable rate, they'd exceed that rate, especially for the fact that credit lines are charged day to day. Even if they borrowed that money on a credit card, they'd come out ahead. IRR is a metric. It has no emotion, no personality, no goals. It's a number we can calculate. It's up to you to use it correctly.", "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": "a8f5c67f878e8aa0682ee18e0675e321", "text": "IRR is subjective, if you could provide another metric instead of the IRR; then this would make sense. You can't spend IRR. For example, you purchase a property with a down payment; and the property provides cash-flow; you could show that your internal rate of return is 35%, but your actual rate of importance could be the RoR, or Cap Rate. I feel that IRR is very subjective. IRR is hardly looked at top MBA programs. It's studied, but other metrics are used, such as ROI, ROR, etc. IRR should be a tool that you visually compare to another metric. IRR can be very misleading, for example it's like the cash on cash return on an investment.", "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": "e25e337420c113aef3d69ee5b4815c3f", "text": "Interest rates are always given annually, to make them comparable. If you prefer to calculate the rate or the total interest for the complete time, like 10 years or 15 years or 30 years, it is simple math, and it tells you the total you will pay, but it is not helpful for picking the better or even the right offer for your situation. Compare it to your car's gas mileage- what sense does it make to provide the information that a car will use 5000 gallons of gas over its lifetime? Is that better than a car that uses 6000 gallons (but may live 2 years longer?)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "de786917a9584835bf7c24d2ad3ed4be", "text": "\"I did a rough model and in terms of total $$ paid (interest + penalty - alternative investment income) both options are almost the same with the \"\"paying it all upfront\"\" being perhaps a $300 or so better ($9200 vs $8900) However, that doesn't factor in inflation or tax considerations. Personally I'd go with the \"\"no-penalty\"\" scenario since you have more flexibility and can adjust along the way if anything else comes up in the meantime.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b949e7c4d790bedfd8add9e42eca3b2", "text": "Generically, interest rates being charged are driven in large part by the central bank's rate and competition tends to keep similar loans priced fairly close to each other. Interest rates being paid are driven by what's needed to get folks to lend you their money (deposit in bank, purchase bonds) so it's again related. There certainly isn't very direct coupling, but in general interest rates of all sorts do tend to swing (very) roughly in the same direction at (very) roughly the same time... so the concept that interest rates of all types are rising or falling at any given moment is a simplification but not wholly unreasonable. If you want to know which interest rates a particular person is citing to back up their claim you really need to ask them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca9ff7c27a27a446f5031e35247d5294", "text": "Asset prices are inversely related to interest rates. If you're valuing a business or a bond, if you use a lower interest rate you get a higher valuation. Historic equity returns benefit from a falling interest rate environment which won't be repeated as interest rates can only go so low. edit: typo", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c19193e24bda7e5901b24d261c9f47e6", "text": "What is much more likely is immediate or close to immediate investment. but this is exactly my point of contention with how they do things. I know for a fact that the money is immediately invested, which is why i find it wrong that interest for money collected in a given financial year is announced after the end of the next financial year. i was wondering if this was a common practice in other countries.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ab2573cad4bde03574e290f5e8ed6ac", "text": "\"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9dc01201aa4269618c5e42e2e8990c96", "text": "Both are correct depending on what you are really trying to evaluate. If you only want to understand how that particular investment you were taking money in and out of did by itself than you would ignore the cash. You might use this if you were thinking of replacing that particular investment with another but keeping the in/out strategy. If you want to understand how the whole investment strategy worked (both the in/out motion and the choice of investment) than you would definitely want to include the cash component as that is necessary for the strategy and would be your final return if you implemented that strategy. As a side note, neither IRR or CAGR are not great ways to judge investment strategies as they have some odd timing issues and they don't take into account risk.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ce467dafc6ecdc97e17f36d18c0971e", "text": "The year over year compounding in India has the potential to make up for interest rate parity. But 3% isn't really going to create convenient amounts of earnings either until you get to larger amounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "992674f8684d5708dcff9648a574e10e", "text": "I think sometimes this is simply ignorance. If my marginal tax rate is 25%, then I can either pay tax deductible interest of $10K or pay income tax of $2.5K. I think most americans don't realize that paying $10K of tax deductible interest (think mortgage) only saves them $2.5K in taxes. In other words, I'd be $7.5K ahead if I didn't have the debt, but did pay higher taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa5e66223e0d31931d90f77af9794929", "text": "Q1: Which is better option and provide good returns between FD and RD ? There is no right or wrong answer here and depends on rates, convenience, exactness of duration, etc and other things. In general an FD would give you better return than RD. Q2: Am I liable to pay income tax on the interest earned ? If you have a NRE/NRO account you are not liable for tax on interest in India. Note you may still be liable to pay tax on this in the US", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f40db430f8f8ee4666972af247ef285", "text": "\"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish). (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected. On average \"\"the market\"\" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free. You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest. You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset. You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks. So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off. In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in? Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns. If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds). So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk. However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd32495b2fc65a7b03e82757110cf866", "text": "\"The CBOE states, in an investor's guide to Interest Rate Options: The Options’ Underlying Values Underlying values for the option contracts are 10 times the underlying Treasury yields (rates)— 13-week T-bill yield (for IRX), 5-year T-note yield (for FVX), 10-year T-note yield (for TNX) and 30-year T-bond yield (for TYX). The Yahoo! rate listed is the actual Treasury yield; the Google Finance and CBOE rates reflect the 10 times value. I don't think there's a specific advantage to \"\"being contrary\"\", more likely it's a mistake, or just different.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "85ec14f084fa130fad51e5b6d27fee4a", "text": "> Does it make sense to calculate the IRR based on the outstanding value of the project, or just use the cash flows paid out? What is the outstanding value of the project based on? I'm guessing it is the PV of net cash flow? The timing of each cash outflow (i.e. investment) is crucial to calculating a proper IRR because of time value of money. Putting in $x each year for 49 years will give you a different figure from putting in $49x in the first year and zero for the next 48 years because a larger figure is tied up for a longer time period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b18dfb2f980c7c6e0d47ae978440fba3", "text": "\"The definition you cite is correct, but obscure. I prefer a forward looking definition. Consider the real investment. You make an original investment at some point in time. You make a series of further deposits and withdrawals at specified times. At some point after the last deposit/withdrawal, (the \"\"end\"\") the cash value of the investment is determined. Now, find a bank account that pays interest compounded daily. Possibly it should allow overdrafts where it charges the same interest rate. Make deposits and withdrawals to/from this account that match the investment payments in amount and date. At the \"\"end\"\" the value in this bank account is the same as the investment. The bank interest rate that makes this happen is the IRR for the investment...\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3e73223e2b07bbf53652d75b261bb431	How do I calculate the actual dividend amount for a monthly dividend payout mutual fund?	[ { "docid": "0f25b9fbec9ffacf7aed54f24f4be5ec", "text": "In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2d54102c2d480f7adc795284fb66e01", "text": "So if someone would invest 14000 credits on 1st April 2016, he'd get monthly dividend = ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) × (1 - 1.42 ÷ 100) = 44.459 credits, right? One would get ((14000 ÷ 14) × 0.0451) = 45.1 is what you would get. The expenses are not to be factored. Generally if a scheme has less expense ratio, the yield is more. i.e. this has already got factored in 0.0451. If the expense ratio was less, this would have been 0.05 if expense ration would have been more it would have been 0.040. Can I then consider the bank deposit earning a higher income per month than the mutual fund scheme? As the MIP as classified as Hybrid funds as they invest around 30% in equities, there is no tax on the income. More so if there is a lock-in of 3 years. In Bank FD, there would be tax applicable as per tax brackets.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ef9d348bbe5f1714fae78ad0a3deefa4", "text": "Given that a mutual fund manager knows, at the end of the day, precisely how many shares/units/whatever of each investment (stock, equity, etc.) they own, plus their bank balance, It is calculating this given. There are multiple orders that a fund manager requests for execution, some get settled [i.e. get converted into trade], the shares itself don't get into account immediately, but next day or 2 days later depending on the exchange. Similarly he would have sold quite a few shares and that would still show shares in his account. The bank balance itself will not show the funds to pay as the fund manager has purchased something ... or the funds received as the fund manager has sold something. So in general they roughly know the value ... but they don't exactly know the value and would have to factor the above variables. That's not a simple task when you are talking about multiple trades across multiple shares.", "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": "ebd7b8b4d4c3a2ee667131466eae36f4", "text": "I second @DumbCoder, every company seems to have its own way of displaying the next dividend date and the actual dividend. I keep track of this information and try my best to make it available for free through my little iphone web app here http://divies.nazabe.com", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef1d46e35b4796f95e4728a467cc4b46", "text": "\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "74f1a239bcc0d9bbad7d9f5ed35dbb9c", "text": "Dividends are normally paid in cash, so don't generally affect your portfolio aside from a slight increase to 'cash'. You get a check for them, or your broker would deposit the funds into a money-market account for you. There is sometimes an option to re-invest dividends, See Westyfresh's answer regarding Dividend Re-Investment Plans. As Tom Au described, the dividends are set by the board of directors and announced. Also as he indicated just before the 'record' date, a stock which pays dividends is worth slightly more (reflecting the value of the dividend that will be paid to anyone holding the stock on the record date) and goes down by the dividend amount immediately after that date (since you'd now have to hold the stock till the next record date to get a dividend) In general unless there's a big change in the landscape (such as in late 2008) most companies pay out about the same dividend each time, and changes to this are sometimes seen by some as 'indicators' of company health and such news can result in movement in the stock price. When you look at a basic quote on a ticker symbol there is usually a line for Div/yeild which gives the amount of dividend paid per share, and the relative yeild (as a percentage of the stock price). If a company has been paying dividends, this field will have values in it, if a company does not pay a dividend it will be blank or say NA (depending on where you get the quote). This is the easiest way to see if a company pays a dividend or not. for example if you look at this quote for Google, you can see it pays no dividend Now, in terms of telling when and how much of a dividend has been paid, most financial sites have the option when viewing a stock chart to show the dividend payments. If you expand the chart to show at least a year, you can see when and how much was paid in terms of dividends. For example you can see from this chart that MSFT pays dividends once a quarter, and used to pay out 13 cents, but recently changed to 16 cents. if you were to float your mouse over one of those icons it would also give the date the dividend was paid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d7415e57f6fb728475f29326f504f12", "text": "\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e28a52eaec0a8566c7ba87bfe3ad33fa", "text": "Fund performance at NAV (%) for latest quarter, YTD, and average annual total returns for 1, 3, 5, 10 years. P/E ratio (1 yr. forecast), P/B ratio, Beta, Sharpe ratio, Wtd. avg. market cap, fund assets. I guess I would want to calculate all these things based off of the data that I would be working with. I will assume I am working with daily fund values per share over 10+ years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3ff2d91d58df55f959c18195cd1b5d0", "text": "As BrenBarn stated, tracking fractional transactions beyond 8 decimal places makes no sense in the context of standard stock and mutual fund transactions. This is because even for the most expensive equities, those fractional shares would still not be worth whole cent amounts, even for account balances in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. One important thing to remember is that when dealing with equities the total cost, number of shares, and share price are all 3 components of the same value. Thus if you take 2 of those values, you can always calculate the third: (price * shares = cost, cost / price = shares, etc). What you're seeing in your account (9 decimal places) is probably the result of dividing uneven values (such as $9.37 invested in a commodity which trades for $235.11, results in 0.03985368550891072264046616477394 shares). Most brokerages will round this value off somewhere, yours just happens to include more decimal places than your financial software allows. Since your brokerage is the one who has the definitive total for your account balance, the only real solution is to round up or down, whichever keeps your total balance in the software in line with the balance shown online.", "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": "2094d7156fc883a75b08ffc70efb33db", "text": "It's really boring and you should automate it. Most front office guys worth their salt have built something that will normally calculate what they should have in their portfolios. Basically we own X units of stock K, stock K pays dividend D on date M, you check on date M that we have received X*D for all K's. When trades are made you also need to verify that the dollar amounts are correct, for equity its usually automatic but for fixed income and OTC products you can build a tool to check it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fab78c04a66a89ee0cd7467bfa6429fa", "text": "In the context of EDV, 4.46 is the indicated dividend rate. The indicated dividend rate is the rate that would be paid per share throughout the next year, assuming dividends stayed the same as prior payment. sources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "237d225e0da24ae0ac9d26ba666568d8", "text": "i will not calculate it for you but just calculate the discounted cash flow (by dividing with 1.1 / 1.1^2 / 1.1^3 ...)of each single exercise as stated and deduct the 12.000 of the above sum. in the end compare which has the highest npv", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caaa941e38ec9ee827a9992f82a54e8c", "text": "\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77020278c293530c661735f289a355d6", "text": "In a money market fund, one share is worth $1. For your fund, you'll earn $0.0010 a year per share, or 0.10%. That is all that you will earn. The APY is just another number to represent this interest rate, not a separate income stream. If you were expecting extra money from a separately credited dividend, you were mistaken. (Usually the APY is a slightly different number than the interest rate, to reflect the way that the interest is compounded over the course of the year. In this case the compounding is too slight to notice with just 2 decimal places.) If you were investing in a regular savings account, you would see the rate you are paid expressed as an APY also, but not as a dividend (as no shares are involved) and use that number to compare the two. If you were buying a bond fund or stock fund that did not have a fixed price, you could calculate the dividend yield based on the current stock price, but you would not probably see an APY listed. Money market funds are kind of an odd hybrid of 'fund' and 'savings', so they list both.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c49bd44e7d3b0a7175b32dfd136e5cd2", "text": "\"Let me see if I can restate your question: are speculative investments more volatile (subject to greater spikes and drops in pricing) than are more long-term investments which are defined by the predictability of their dividend returns? The short answer is: yes. However, where it gets complicated is in deciding whether something is a speculative investment. Take your example of housing. People who buy a house as an investment either choose to rent it out (so receive \"\"rent\"\" as \"\"dividend\"\") or live in it (foregoing dividends). Either way, the scale of the investment is large and this is often the only direct investment that people manage themselves. For this reason houses are bound up in the sentimental value people attach to a home, the difficulty of uprooting and moving elsewhere in search of cheaper housing or better employment, or the sunk cost of debt that can't be recovered by a fire-sale. Such inertia can lead to sudden sell-offs as critical inflection points are reached (such as hoped-for economic improvements fail to materialise and cash needs become critical). At different levels that is true of just about every investment. Driving price-volatility is the ease of sale and the trade-offs involved. A share that offers regular and dependable dividends, even if its absolute value falls, is going to be hung on to more frequently than those shares that suffer a similar decline but only offer a capital gain. For the latter, the race is on to sell before the drop neutralises any remaining capital gain the investor may have experienced. A house with a good tenant or a share with stable dividends will be kept in preference for the quick cash-return of selling an asset that offers no such ongoing returns. This would result, visually, in more eratic curves for \"\"speculative\"\" shares while more stable shares are characterised by periods of stability interspersed with moments of mania. But I have to take your query further, since you provide graphical evidence to support your thesis. Your charts combine varying time-scales, different sample rates and different scales (one of which is even a log scale). It becomes impossible to draw any sort of meaningful micro-comparison unless they're all presented using exactly the same criteria.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6f8ccf5cd33a5d9f177145bc277c1e99	How do government bond yields work?	[ { "docid": "448e3bbfec8eca4a4454abef042cc878", "text": "Why does the rising price of a bond pushes it's yield down? The bond price and its yield are linked; if one goes up, the other must go down. This is because the cash flows from the bond are fixed, predetermined. The market price of the bond fluctuates. Now what if people are suddenly willing to pay more for the same fixed payments? It must mean that the return, i.e. the yield, will be lower. Here we see that risk associated with the bonds in question has skyrocketed, and thus bonds' returns has skyrocketed, too. Am I right? The default risk has increased, yes. Now, I assume that bonds' price is determined by the market (issued by a state, traded at the market). Is that correct? Correct, as long as you are talking about the market price. Then who determines bonds' yields? I mean, isn't it fixed? Or - in the FT quote above - they are talking about the yields for the new bonds issued that particular month? The yield is not fixed - the cash flows are. Yield is the internal rate of return. See my answer above to your first question.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "656589e9d96d088607d40054b51d5255", "text": "Imagine a $1,000 face value bond paying 10% interest semi-annually. That means every 6 months there is $50 being paid. Now, if the price of that bond doubled to $2,000, what is the yield? It is still paying $50 every 6 months but now sports a 5% yield as the price went up a great deal. Similarly, if the price of the bond was cut in half to $500, now it is yielding 20% because it is still paying out the $50 every 6 months. The dollar figure is fixed. What percentage of the price it is can vary and that is why there is the inverse relationship between prices and yields. Note that the length of the bond isn't mentioned here where while usually longer bonds will have higher yields, there can be inverted yield curves as well as calls on some bonds. Also, inflation-indexed and convertible bonds could have different calculations used as principal adjustments or possible conversion to stock can change a perception on the overall return.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8e1162224e7de57d4ba2000d60312f68", "text": "\"Governments borrowing money doesn't create new money. When banks \"\"borrow\"\" money (i.e. take deposits), it does effectively create money because the depositor expects to be able to get the money back at any time, but the bank assumes that most won't actually do this and lends out most of the money to other people. If everyone did actually ask for their money back at once, the illusion of the extra money created by this process would collapse, and the bank would go bust. In contrast when governments borrow money, the loan isn't repayable on demand, it has a fixed maturity and the money is only repaid at the end of that period (plus interest at defined points during the period). So holders of government debt don't have money they can spend (they can turn it into money they can spend but only by finding someone else to buy it). So government debt doesn't create inflation in itself. If they printed money, then they'd be devaluing the money of everyone who had saved or invested, whereas if they borrow money and use taxes to repay it, the burden falls more evenly across the economy and doesn't disproportionately penalise certain sets of people.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6a32ab6bf72d834302a6fca7bae388b3", "text": "\"So with any debt, be it a loan or a bond or anything else, you have two parts, the principal and the interest. The interest payment is calculated by applying the interest % to the principal. Most bonds are \"\"bullet bonds\"\" which means that the principle remains completely outstanding for the life of the bond and thus your interest payments are constant throughout the life of the bond (usually paid semi-annually). Typically part of the purpose of these is to be indefinitely refinanced, so you never really pay the principal back, though it is theoretically due at expiration. What you are thinking of when you say a loan from a bank is an amortizing loan. With these you pay an increasing amount of the principal each period calculated such that your payments are all exactly the same (including the final payment). Bonds, just like bank loans, can be bullet, partially amortizing (you pay some of the principle but still have a smaller lump sum at the end) and fully amortizing. One really common bullet structure is \"\"5 non-call 3,\"\" which means you aren't allowed to pay the principle down for the first three years even if you want to! This is to protect investors who spend time and resources investing in you!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1b79b7b99ed5009f4f2901d4a3c970d8", "text": "I'm not too familiar with the Bank of England's objectives, but it seems similar to the FED's QE program. The interest rate the BOE sets, similar to the FED rate, affects mainly the short term (the left side) of the [interest rate curve](http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/pages/yieldcurve/default.aspx). However, in order to bring down intermediate and long term rates, central banks will buy intermediate and long dated government and corporate bonds. The government's added demand will drive those bond prices up, which will drive yields down. But like I said, I'm not too familiar with the BOE's bond purchasing program, so I could be way off base here.", "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": "f4dfadeeefad1c3988f5f9ae9342142f", "text": "Why does selling a bond drive up the yield? The bond will pay back a fixed amount when it comes due. The yield is a comparison of what you pay for the bond and what will be repaid when it matures (assuming no default). Why does the yield go up if the country is economically unstable? If the country's economy is unstable, that increases the chance that they will default and not pay the full value of the bonds when they mature. People are selling them now at a loss instead of waiting for a default later for a greater loss. So if you think Greece is not going to default as it's highly likely a country would completely default, wouldn't it make sense to hold onto the bonds? Only if you also think that they will pay back the full value at maturity. It's possible that they pay some, but not all. It's also possible that they will default. It's also possible that they will get kicked out of the Euro and start printing Drachmas again, and try to pay the bonds back with those which could devalue the bonds through inflation. The market is made of lots of smart people. If they think there are reasons to worry, there probably are. That doesn't mean they can predict the future, it just means that they are pricing the risk with good information. If you are smarter than the herd, by all means, bet against them and buy the bonds now. It can indeed be lucrative if you are right, and they are wrong.", "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": "c64cffb9f5b04dd8da7726e4221e02f7", "text": "Yes there is an inverse relationship but that's how it's meant to work. Debt creates money. Banks do lend out customers savings for return interest as the bank can make a profit rather than the cash just sitting there. The process of Lending pumps money into the economy that wouldn't be there otherwise so it creates money. The banks will either have a cash deficit or surplus at end of each day and either need to borrow from other banks to balance their books or if in surplus lend to other banks to make interest because that's more profitable than holding the cash surplus. The overnight cash rate then determines interest rates we pay. High private debt occurs when lots of people are investing & buying things so there is stimulation and growth in the economy. A lot more tax is being paid in these periods so government debt is lower because they are getting lots of tax money. Also To stimulate the economy into this growth period the government usually sells off large cash bonds (lowering their debt) to release cash into the economy, the more cash available the less banks have to borrow to cover deficits on overnight cash market and the lower interest rates will be. Lower interest rates = more borrowing and higher Private debt. The government can't let growth get out of control as they don't want high inflation so they do the opposite to slow down growth, I.e buy up cash bonds and take money out of economy causing higher interest rates and less borrowing = More debt for government less for private.", "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": "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": "d9ff22fad222bb44d548c34d3f973584", "text": "Yes, the interest rate on a Treasury does change as market rates change, through changes in the price. But once you purchase the instrument, the rate you get is locked in. The cashflows on a treasury are fixed. So if the market rate increase, the present value of those future cashflows decreases, so the price of the treasury decreases. If you buy the bond after this happens, you would pay a lower price for the same fixed cashflows, hence you will receive a higher rate. Note that once you purchase the treasury instrument, your returns are locked in and guaranteed, as others have mentioned. Also note that you should distinguish between Treasury Bills and Treasury Bonds, which you seem to use interchangeably. Straight from the horse's mouth, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm: Treasury Bills are short term securities with maturity up to a year, Treasury Notes are medium term securities with maturity between 1 and 10 years, and Treasury Bonds are anything over 10 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15e8bee2da522fc40bf064208134acbd", "text": "yield on a Treasury bond increases This primarily happens when the government increases interest rates or there is too much money floating around and the government wants to suck out money from the economy, this is the first step not the other way around. The most recent case was Fed buying up bonds and hence releasing money in to the economy so companies and people start investing to push the economy on the growth path. Banks normally base their interest rates on the Treasury bonds, which they use as a reference rate because of the probability of 0 default. As mortgage is a long term investment, so they follow the long duration bonds issued by the Fed. They than put a premium on the money lent out for taking that extra risk. So when the governments are trying to suck out money, there is a dearth of free flowing money and hence you pay more premium to borrow because supply is less demand is more, demand will eventually decrease but not in the short run. Why do banks increase the rates they loan money at when people sell bonds? Not people per se, but primarily the central bank in a country i.e. Fed in US.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7751eff7538c3741651656f32aa11030", "text": "In this case the market interest rate is the discount rate that sets equal the market price (current value) of the bond to its present value. To find the market interest rate which is also referred to as promised yield YTM you would have solve for the interest rate in the bond price formula A market price of bond is the sum of discounted coupons and the terminal value of the bond. Most spreadsheet programs and calculators have a RATE function that makes possible finding this market interest rate. First see this for finding a coupon paying bond price The coupon payments are discounted so is the par value of the bond and sum of such discounts is the market price of the bond. The TVM functions in Excel and calculators make this possible using the following equation Let us take your data, 9% $100,000 coupon with 5 years remaining to maturity with market interest rate of 10%. Bonds issued in the US mostly pay two coupons per year. Thus we are finding the present value of 10 coupons each worth $4500 and par value of $100,000. The semi-annual market interest rate is 10%/2 or 5% The negative sign indicate money going out of hand Now solving for RATE is only possible using numerical methods and the RATE function is programmed using Newton-Raphson method to find one of the roots of the bond price equation. This rate will be the periodic rate in this case semi-annual rate which you have to multiply by 2 to get the annual rate. Do remember there is a difference between annual nominal rate and an annualized effective rate. To find the market interest rate If you don't have Excel or a financial calculator then you may opt to use my version of these financial functions in this JavaScript library tadJS", "title": "" }, { "docid": "138dffcbb14d51c140e77c76bd629783", "text": "The 1 month and 1 year columns show the percentage change over that period. Coupon (coupon rate) is the amount of interest paid on the bond each period (as specified on the coupon itself. Price is the normalised price of the bond; the price of taking a position of $100 worth of the principal in the bond. Yield is the interest rate that you would receive by buying at that price (this is the inverse of the price). The time is the time of the quote presented.", "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": "7221056a578700c636aa560c34718d2b", "text": "\"You have to read basically the whole article to find out how this actually works: \"\"The “full faith and taxing power” of communities, a solemn pledge, was being used to guarantee revenue bonds for nonessentials like solar-power projects, apartment buildings and a soccer stadium — things bailout-weary taxpayers might walk away from if the guarantees were called. \"\" basically they promised to raise taxes to pay off bonds.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
29d1b1406a9c5d15e16396f5e323c56b	Is a currency “hedged” ETF actually a more speculative instrument than an unhedged version?	[ { "docid": "1e640c432f9c2f8e44e602ec3db6e3b1", "text": "Currency hedge means that you are somewhat protected from movements in currency as your investment is in gold not currency. So this then becomes less speculative and concentrates more on your intended investment. EDIT The purpose of the GBSE ETF is aimed for investors living in Europe wanting to invest in USD Gold and not be effected by movements in the EUR/USD. The GBSE ETF aims to hedge against the effects of the currency movements in the EUR/USD and more closely track the USD Gold price. The 3 charts below demonstrate this over the past 5 years. So as is demonstrated the performance of the GBSE ETF closely matches the performance of the USD Gold price rather than the EUR Gold price, meaning someone in Europe can invest in the fund and get the appropriate similar performance as investing directly into the USD Gold without being affected by currency exchange when changing back to EUR. This is by no way speculative as the OP suggests but is in fact serving the purpose as per the ETF details.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26ceaf89f25dc15d761e3c7c15c56718", "text": "\"The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments. The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio. If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the \"\"hedged\"\" ETF is less risky than the \"\"unhedged\"\" version. On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. \"\"Hedging\"\" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio. In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF. It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20f5e8dda815a97019c151c8a937f3d1", "text": "\"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4716c4aba4846bb7b7f17bbdd83f777e", "text": "I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7dba0900e0c8d2e5b352741e92b3abfd", "text": "Equal weighted indexes are not theoretically meant to be less volatile or less risky; they're just a different way to weigh stocks in an index. If you had a problem that hurt small caps more than large caps, an equal weighted index will be hurt more than a market-cap weighted one. On the other hand, if you consider that second rung companies have come up to replace the top layer, it makes sense to weigh them on par. History changes on a per-country basis - in India, for instance, the market's so small at the lower-cap end that big money chases only the large caps, which go up more in a liquidity driven move. But in a more secular period (like the last 18 months) we see that smaller caps have outperformed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3b870bb13360f8f4603071e8bca3010", "text": "I use the following allocation in my retirement portfolio: I prefer these because: Expense Ratios Oh, and by their very definition, ETFs are very liquid. EDIT: The remaining 10% is the speculative portion of my portfolio. Currently, I own shares in HAP (as a hedge against rising commodity prices) and TIP (as a hedge against hyperinflation).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4fec76dba1c60a221c6dc87a3037197", "text": "The opposite of a hedge is nothing. Because if you don't want to hedge you bets, you don't, therefore you merely have the original bet. The opposite state of being hedged, is being unhedged.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "625c51b04a0f46376f261af653ae8fa1", "text": "If you do not understand the volatility of the fx market, you need to stop trading it, immediately. There are many reasons that fx is riskier than other types of investing, and you bear those risks whether you understand them or not. Below are a number of reasons why fx trading has high levels of risk: 1) FX trades on the relative exchange rate between currencies. That means it is a zero-sum game. Over time, the global fx market cannot 'grow'. If the US economy doubles in size, and the European economy doubles in size, then the exchange rate between the USD and the EUR will be the same as it is today (in an extreme example, all else being equal, yes I know that value of currency /= value of total economy, but the general point stands). Compare that with the stock market - if the US economy doubles in size, then effectively the value of your stock investments will double in size. That means that stocks, bonds, etc. tied to real world economies generally increase when the global economy increases - it is a positive sum game, where many players can be winners. On the long term, on average, most people earn value, without needing to get into 'timing' of trades. This allows many people to consider long-term equity investing to be lower risk than 'day-trading'. With FX, because the value of a currency is in its relative position compared with another currency, 1 player is a winner, 1 player is a loser. By this token, most fx trading is necessarily short-term 'day-trading', which by itself carries inherent risk. 2) Fx markets are insanely efficient (I will lightly state that this is my opinion, but one that I am not alone in holding firmly). This means that public information about a currency [ie: economic news, political news, etc.] is nearly immediately acted upon by many, many people, so that the revised fx price of that currency will quickly adjust. The more efficient a market is, the harder it is to 'time a trade'. As an example, if you see on a news feed that the head of a central bank authority made an announcement about interest rates in that country [a common driver of fx prices], you have only moments to make a trade before the large institutional investors already factor it into their bid/ask prices. Keep in mind that the large fx players are dealing with millions and billions of dollars; markets can move very quickly because of this. Note that some currencies trade more frequently than others. The main currency 'pairs' are typically between USD and / or other G10 country-currencies [JPY, EUR, etc.]. As you get into currencies of smaller countries, trading of those currencies happens less frequently. This means that there may be some additional time before public information is 'priced in' to the market value of that currency, making that currency 'less efficient'. On the flip side, if something is infrequently traded, pricing can be more volatile, as a few relatively smaller trades can have a big impact on the market. 3) Uncertainty of political news. If you make an fx trade based on what you believe will happen after an expected political event, you are taking risk that the event actually happens. Politics and world events can be very hard to predict, and there is a high element of chance involved [see recent 'expected' election results across the world for evidence of this]. For something like the stock market, a particular industry may get hit every once in a while with unexpected news, but the fx market is inherently tied to politics in a way that may impact exchange rates multiple times a day. 4) Leveraging. It is very common for fx traders to borrow money to invest in fx. This creates additional risk because it amplifies the impact of your (positive or negative) returns. This applies to other investments as well, but I mention it because high degrees of debt leveraging is extremely common in FX. To answer your direct question: There are no single individual traders who spike fx prices - that is the impact you see of a very efficient market, with large value traders, reacting to frequent, surprising news. I reiterate: If you do not understand the risks associated with fx trade, I recommend that you stop this activity immediately, at least until you understand it better [and I would recommend personally that any amateur investor never get involved in fx at all, regardless of how informed you believe you are].", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e9479291259074533e355387dc6805eb", "text": "\"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "482154794dd04f56b16ebffc9084f877", "text": "How is it possible that long term treasury bonds, which the government has never defaulted on, can hold more risk as an ETF then the stock market index? The risk from long-term bonds isn't that the government defaults, but that interest rates go up before you get paid, so investors want bonds issued more recently at higher interest rates, rather than your older bonds that pay at a lower rate (so the price for your bonds goes down). This is usually caused by higher inflation rates which reduce the value of the interest that you will be paid. Do you assume more risk investing in bond ETFs than you would investing in individual bonds? If you are choosing the right ETFs, there should be a lower amount of risk because the ETFs are taking care of the difficult work of buying a variety of bonds. Are bond ETFs an appropriate investment vehicle for risk diversification? Yes, if you are investing in bonds, exchange traded funds are an appropriate way to buy them. The markets for ETFs are usually very liquid.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1a5261fd35e60a67b52827496240db6b", "text": "\"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "041ce37bd0f111523e88e92d4ce75aaf", "text": "\"Large multinationals who do business in multiple locales hedge even \"\"stable\"\" currencies like the Euro, Yen and Pound - because a 5-10% adverse move in an exchange rate is highly consequential to the bottom line. I doubt any of them are going to be doing significant amounts of business accepting a currency with a 400% annual range. And why should they? It's nothing more than another unit of payment - one with its own problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "555223a44e7e0de664852d58805003da", "text": "You can, and people do. More a Japanese thing than a US thing but I guess they've had super low interest rates for longer. Its called 'the carry trade' and is the reason the NZD is artificially high (which as an NZ exporter I find kinda annoying). Particularly popular with the so called 'japanese housewife' investor. It also causes the NZD to plunge every time the US stock market dips - because the NZD is held mostly as a moderately risky investment, not for trade purposes. Presumably in a down market hedge funds need to cash in their carry trades to cover margins or something? As another person said the primary risk is currency fluctuations. Unfortunately such currencies are highly volatile and tied to stock market volatility. tl;dr It'd be nice if you all quit treating my national currency as an investment opportunity - then i could get on with my business as an New Zealand exporter ;-)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "505ca7e221596c6b8fd0ab08c320d875", "text": "Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "96347bc9f864460e64c7d4b3f9adb866", "text": "My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0", "text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "865240ab604dba7ad74efcc5a828f86a", "text": "\"I was in a similar situation, and used FX trading to hedge against currency fluctuations. I bought the \"\"new\"\" currency when the PPP implied valuation of my \"\"old\"\" currency was high, and was able to protect quite a bit of purchasing power that I would have lost without the hedge. Unfortunately you get taxed for the \"\"gain\"\" you made, but still helpful. In terms of housing market, you could look into a Ireland REIT index, but it may not correlate well with the actual house prices you are looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad24bc70d108b7e7ae6c9e178439439", "text": "I've wondered why anyone thinks it will be more than a speculation instrument. I'd love to hear arguments for it but they always fall short as soon as I think about countries inflating/deflating the value of their own currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b28010f24ba136e0758ff60ec4c89ee2", "text": "\"While I'm sure there's some truth to the argument that unsophisticated retail investors index against the S&P 500 thinking that they're tracking \"\"the market,\"\" I don't think it makes sense to steer the S&P 500 in that direction to cater to that lowest common denominator. The ad absurdum conclusion of that course of action, of course, would be to abolish the S&P 500 entirely and move those assets into the S&P Total Market Index. But clearly there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps with single share classes, just as there's value in having an index that tracks US large-caps in general. As for whether it will be a loss for passive investors...it will be interesting to see how that pans out. Maybe good corporate governance and direct accountability by managers really do contribute positively to returns in the long run and investors will benefit from this change as a result. Or maybe this will result in companies with multiple share classes being undervalued and create an opportunity to earn outsized returns by investing in them, and indexes that omit those companies will underperform. Only time will tell.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1a8faf67f8725c7d8b282f58d1ef9b1b	Looking to buy a house in 1-2 years. Does starting a Roth IRA now make sense?	[ { "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": "a84b09627540269a6bcb47aed748f4c1", "text": "If you are going to be buying a house in 1-2 years, I would be putting my money into a short term holding area like a high interest (which isn't that high right now) or a CD (also low interest) because of your near-term need. I wouldn't use the Roth option for your down payment money. If you invest in something volatile (and stocks/mutual funds are very volatile in a 1-2 year term) I would consider it too risky for your need and time frame.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915f5cb3be2873b9c7d9d88e4e4ddf84", "text": "First, look at the local housing market, and the price to rent ratios. If you are comfortable that a house can be had for near to the cost of renting, and are not still dropping is price, then focus on the down-payment. I don't imagine housing prices to start picking up any time soon, so you don't be too rushed. If you feel like you have a longer time to save before you want to buy, I would focus as much money as I can into a retirement account while still saving for a down payment. Since you are young, you really want your retirement accounts working for you as soon as possible. You should not be investing in 3% stable funds, but the stock market index funds. Retirement is for 40 years in the future. Using funds for a down-payment from a retirement account should be a last resort. Remember this money is to provide you security later in life, not to get you into a house. When you take out money and put it into a house, it will not be appreciating nearly as fast. It is easy to say you will save later, but the money you save early in life will make up 50% or more of your funds when you retire. That is why it is critical to save for retirement as soon as possible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8521b813447d2a21cb90b3f05d77a8fc", "text": "Lets do the math (assuming a lot of stuff, like your interest rates and that you make the contribution at the beginning of the year, also your tax bracket at the withdrawal time frame.) 1.) Beginning of year 1 Roth Option $5k contribution Non Roth Option $5k contribution 2.) Beginning of year 2 Roth Option $5000 + $150 interest + 5K contribution = $10150 Non Roth Option $5000 + $75 interest + 5K contribution = $10075 3.) End of year 2 Buy a house! yay! Roth Option---before withdrawal account value = 10150+10150*.03=10454.5 after withdrawl (assuming 38% tax on earnings withdrawal (10%penalty + 28% income tax estimate.) = 10327.17 Non Roth Option = 10 226.125 So you are talking about a significant amount of paperwork to either 1.) Net yourself $100 toward the purchase 2.) Cost yourself $226 on the purchase but have $454.50 in your roth ira. I am not sure I would do that, but it might be worth it.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8a62de7c839adaec6cb463239c9d06ab", "text": "Years before retirement isn't related at all to the Pretax IRA/Roth IRA decision, except insomuch as income typically trends up over time for most people. If tax rates were constant (both at income levels and over time!), Roth and Pretax would be identical. Say you designate 100k for contribution, 20% tax rate. 80k contributed in Roth vs. 100k contributed in Pretax, then 20% tax rate on withdrawal, ends up with the same amount in your bank account after withdrawal - you're just moving the 20% tax grab from one time to another. If you choose Roth, it's either because you like some of the flexibility (like taking out contributions after 5 years), or because you are currently paying a lower marginal rate than you expect you will be in the future - either because you aren't making all that much this year, or because you are expecting rates to rise due to political changes in our society. Best is likely a diversified approach - some of your money pretax, some posttax. At least some should be in a pretax IRA, because you get some tax-free money each year thanks to the personal exemption. If you're working off of 100% post-tax, you are paying more tax than you ought unless you're getting enough Social Security to cover the whole 0% bucket (and probably the 10% bucket, also). So for example, you're thinking you want 70k a year. Assuming single and ignoring social security (as it's a very complicated issue - Joe Taxpayer has a nice blog article regarding it that he links to in his answer), you get $10k or so tax-free, then another $9k or so at 10% - almost certainly lower than what you pay now. So you could aim to get $19k out of your pre-tax IRA, then, and 51k out of your post-tax IRA, meaning you only pay $900 in taxes on your income. Of course, if you're in the 25% bucket now, you may want to use more pretax, since you could then take that out - all the way to around $50k (standard exemption + $40k or so point where 25% hits). But on the other hand, Social Security would probably change that equation back to using primarily Roth if you're getting a decent Social Security check.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d794d5620e01e8ecb96658c46d9f7f", "text": "\"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "908961df089838354f7ea512ee03d06e", "text": "\"I would like to buy hubby a beer and talk some sense into him. Do you have 2 years gross income saved as your retirement balance? That's about where he should be at age 30. I wrote about this in an article Retirement Savings Ratio. Blowing the 401(k) for anything less than an extreme emergency is downright foolish. The decision whether to roll it to an IRA or the new account isn't so simple. If you roll it to new plan, yes you can borrow, up to 60 months at a low rate, 4% or so. Taking the cash and then making an IRA deposit just means paying the penalty for nothing, unless you manage it just right, depositing the amount within 60 day, etc. You don't mention what he wants to do with it. You need to sit down and have a long \"\"money talk.\"\" Keep in mind, if you oversave, it's easy to retire early, or at 50 just stop saving, spend every new dime. But it's something else to turn 50 and realize you will have to work till you die. I've seen both situations. (I am 48, the Mrs, 54 our multiple is now 13. The target is 20 to retire. The house is not counted as it can't be spent. The mortgage IS counted as it must be paid) Edit - as I read this again, I see the OP asked about opening an IRA in the same year they withdraw the 401(k) and pay tax and penalty. Wow. I also see her user reverted to generic, which means, I think, she's never returned. I hope they made the right decision, to keep the money in retirement accounts. Hubby never even said what he wanted the money for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d15472722a1c8eff87b19c40728d0806", "text": "Well, I was about to ask a similar question. Unless you get into stocks/mutual funds it seems like returns on less risky items such as CDs (certificate of deposit) are terrible. I don't think it is a good use of folks time to ask what a Roth IRA is. We were considering buying a new car (~$20000 with zero down and 0.9% interest rate) but we drive maybe 6000 miles per year. We would be paying ~$550/month to park something in our garage. Our current car is sexless but absolutely reliable. I am now looking elsewhere and may either invest the money in our house (i.e., refinishing upstairs) or paying down our debt. We have a home loan - $132,000 at 3.5% - and a student loan - $12,675 @ 3.375%. Depending on the loan rate on your car, I would pay that down first. Alternatively, find a fee-only broker and drop around $500 for them to come up with a financial plan for you. They will probably recommend a Roth IRA with a specific mutual fund in mind. You'll need $2500 or so to open the Roth, contributions from there should be such that you can start/stop them on demand without fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2211b7e46afdf6f00f2ec40df1332e6c", "text": "\"I wrote a brilliant guest post at Don't Mess With Taxes, titled Roth IRAs and Your Retirement Income. (Note - this article now reflects 2012 rates. Just updated) Simply put, it's an ongoing question of whether your taxes will be higher now than at any point in the future. If you are in the 25% bracket now, it would take quite of bit of money for your withdrawals to put you in that bracket at retirement. In the case of the IRA, you have the opportunity to convert in any year between now and retirement if your rate that year drops for whatever reason. The simplest case is if you are now in the 25% bracket. I say go pre-tax, and track, year by year what your withdrawal would be if you retired today. At 15%, but with a good chance for promotion to the 25% bracket, start with Roth flavor and then as you hit 25%, use a combination. This approach would smooth your marginal rate to stay at 15%. To give you a start to this puzzle, in 2012, a couple has a $11,900 standard deduction along with 2 exemptions of $3800 each. This means the first $19,500 in an IRA comes out tax free at retirement. If you believe in a 4% withdrawal rate, you need a retirement account containing $500K pretax to generate this much money. This tick up with inflation, 2 years ago, it was $18,700 and $467K respectively. This is why those who scream \"\"taxes will go up\"\" may be correct, but do you really believe the standard deduction and exemptions will go away? Edit - and as time passes, and I learn more, new info comes to my attention. The above thoughts not withstanding, there's an issue of taxation of Social Security benefits. This creates a The Phantom Tax Rate Zone which I recently wrote about. A single person with not really too high an income gets thrust into the 46% bracket. Not a typo, 46.25% to be exact.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c0940efd2560a722fb56690133434604", "text": "\"It's not so much a matter of your age as it is a matter of what your current tax rate is vs. what your tax rate will be when you take out the money. As long as your current tax rate is lower than what you anticipate it will be when you withdraw the money, it makes sense to pay the tax now. Of course you can't know for certain what your tax rate will be when you take out your money, but the answer for most people is going to be \"\"higher than it is now\"\". Some reasons why: As you age you start to lose deductions (home mortgage gets paid off, kids grow up and move out). You likely won't gain any new deductions that would lower your tax rate as you age, you'll only lose them. Tax rates now are historically low, and budget deficits are high. That means that higher tax rates are almost certainly coming. So unless your circumstances are very unusual, I would pretty much always recommend saving after-tax dollars. Now that I've said that, I'll throw a small wrench into that plan - when you save with a Roth IRA, you are paying taxes today with the anticipation that you won't have to pay taxes later. But this may not necessarily be the case: The government could decide to tax Roth IRA gains in the future (would be a very unpopular move, but if they decided to do it, who's to stop them?) The government could change the tax system by lowering income tax rates and creating a VAT, or instituting something like the \"\"Flat Tax\"\". Your Roth money is exempt from income tax, but not from a VAT or national sales tax. So, you also need to consider the possibility of those things happening and how that would affect you. Ten years ago nobody would have dreamed of the US having a VAT, but now it looks more and more possible.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4243204acd7aa7a6f881b59294cbe58", "text": "2.5 years is a short period in the stock market. That means there is a significant chance it will be lower in 2.5 years, whereas it is very likely to be higher over a longer time period like 5-10 years. So if you want the funds to grow for sure then consider an online savings account, where you might earn 1-2%. If you want to do stocks anyway, but don't have any idea what fund to buy, the safest default choice is to buy an index fund that tracks the S&P 500. Vanguard's VFINX is one example.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "33e55100e7f8cf99fa4c9a79c4fe355c", "text": "If it's either/or, I'd pay down the mortgage, no question. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not a fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. There are too many things that can change between now and the next 30 years (the time frame that you'll be able to withdraw from your IRA account without penalty). The rules governing these accounts can change at any time, and I don't think they'll be changes for the better. Putting the money toward your mortgage will relieve you of that monthly payment faster. The benefits of IRAs come retirement age are too uncertain for my taste.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86e0bb3dc4107664219376ebcca5c4d4", "text": "\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"", "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": "76d211dce5271fe6c7e08f3a74d7c794", "text": "You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "644c22f68a53d92c00380b254bfeb7ee", "text": "I think others have made the key points. Let me just add: As others have pointed out, the traditional IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is lower than it is when you are building the account. The Roth IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is higher. For most people, your income in retirement will be lower than your income in most of your working years. On top of that, a significant percentage of your income will come from Social Security, which is generally not taxed, and so the tax rate you pay on the remaining income will be lower still. If you're just starting out, if you're in your 20s, it's likely that your income will go up significantly in the next couple of decades and so you might be making more in retirement that you are now, and so the Roth is probably your better bet. But if you're in your 40s or 50s you are probably making your peak income, you will have much less in retirement, and the traditional IRA is likely better. If your income is well above average and you are saving enough to have a retirement income well above average, then social security may be a very small part of your retirement and my comments on that may not be relevant to you. It's true that tax rates could change in the future. But will they go up or down? It's also possible that the laws about retirement accounts will change. If you think you have some insight into what will happen in the future you may want to take that into account when making plans. But politics is very hard to predict.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13c401fc25a4048d059c283ce5734daa", "text": "First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cee6e71109f10119db7802a34754b56e", "text": "I would wait, and invest that money in a Roth IRA. Because taxes are paid on the contributions to a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time, tax and penalty-free. In addition, you can withdraw contributions and earning to purchase your first home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d5aef11d085a3dd22f8ef4a9e831aea5", "text": "\"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
eb02ea88558b40b65dbad30b3df7c81a	What's the point of a benchmark?	[ { "docid": "b0575c565aa94e748005a4f23005bb3b", "text": "Markets tend to go up over time, so most things you could buy would make money. A benchmark is meant to represent the market as a whole (or a subset that is relevant to what you are trading), so you can tell if your specific choices helped or hurt your return. As an example, say you pick two financial stocks, Citi and Goldman. They get you a return of 10% for the year, so you think you made good choices. But if the financial sector as a whole had a return of 20%, your choices weren't actually that great.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7cd5e8af0b5545ab3beca350d62578d0", "text": "Yes an index is by definition any arbitrary selection. In general, to measure performance there are 2 ways: By absolute return - meaning you want a positive return at all times ie. 10% is good. -1% is bad. By relative return - this means beating the benchmark. For example, if the benchmark returns -20% and your portfolio returns -10%, then it has delivered +10% relative returns as compared to the benchmark.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "960b3a993e30a1ac8e8aec15f53f3138", "text": "Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around. Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03e5e991176e44bbed3ca310f9fb51b0", "text": "One reason it matters whether or not you're beating the S&P 500 (or the Wilshire 5000, or whatever benchmark you choose to use) is to determine whether or not you'd be better off investing in an index fund (or some other investment vehicle) instead of pursuing whatever your current investment strategy happens to be. Even if your investment strategy makes money, earning what the S&P 500 has averaged over multiple decades (around 10%) with an index fund means a lot more money than a 5% return with an actively managed portfolio (especially when you consider factors like compound interest and inflation). I use the S&P 500 as one of my criteria for judging how well (or poorly) my financial adviser is doing for me. If his recommendations (or trading activity on my behalf, if authorized) are inferior to the S&P 500, for too long, then I have a basis to discontinue the relationship. Check out this Wikipedia entry on stock market indices. There are legitimate criticisms, but on the whole I think they are useful. As an aside, the reason I point to index funds specifically is that they are the one of the lowest-cost, fire-and-forget investment strategies around. If you compare the return of the S&P 500 index over multiple decades with most actively managed mutual funds, the S&P 500 index comes out ahead.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "b7bbbba72cb8dc5b8dcf6cba5fd65700", "text": "The S&P 500 is a market index. The P/E data you're finding for the S&P 500 is data based on the constituent list of that market index and isn't necessarily the P/E ratio of a given fund, even one that aims to track the performance of the S&P 500. I'm sure similar metrics exist for other market indexes, but unless Vanguard is publishing it's specific holdings in it's target date funds there's no market index to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa789c2d09c37555757096b57dbc6b56", "text": "\"The answer depends on what is your portfolio's objective. If you are operating a multi-asset class portfolio (i.e. your portfolio has both bonds and stocks) and are targeting absolute returns, then yes, comparing a stock's beta (or correlation) to a bond benchmark makes sense. What you do with this stock's \"\"bond beta\"\" information further depends on what kind of return profile you want your multi-asset class portfolio to have. If you want stocks that appreciate in price when bond prices decline, then of course you want to buy \"\"negative bond beta\"\" stocks. If you are operating a purely relative equity portfolio (i.e. you are benchmarked to the stock market), then comparing the \"\"bond beta\"\" is of little use to you. Hope this helps.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf6adfeec928d3c422ac9582dd6e1826", "text": "whether the consecutive wins have any statistical significance could yield a whole reddit thread imho (same with MaxDD). if you bootstrap your OS results, or just randomize them, the observed out of sample MaxDD or the Max consecutive wins could be very different from what you experience in real life...maybe we should work on some particular algo examples... test them out here, compare and criticize. scoring/utility functions are an interesting thread as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81ec14fc701de02e845c914aa6aa8ca4", "text": "No, this is quite wrong. Almost all hedge funds (and all hedge fund investors) use Sharpe as a primary measure of performance. The fact that they don't consider themselves risk-free has no bearing on the issue (that's a bizarre line of reasoning - you're saying Sharpe is only relevant for assets that consider themselves risk-free?). And as AlphaPortfolio rightly points out, most funds have no explicit benchmark and they are usually paid for performance over zero. I've never seen a hedge fund use a benchmark relative information ratio - for starters, what benchmark would you measure a CB arb fund against? Or market neutral quant? Or global macro? Same for CTAs...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26bfeeda4240cfb5753e43a10455bce9", "text": "\"This is (almost) a question in financial engineering. First I will note that a discussion of \"\"the greeks\"\" is well presented at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_(finance) These measures are first, second and higher order derivatives (or rate of change comparisons) for information that is generally instantaneous. (Bear with me.) For example the most popular, Delta, compares prices of an option or other derived asset to the underlying asset price. The reason we are able to do all this cool analysis is because the the value of the underlying and derived assets have a direct, instantaneous relationship on each other. Because beta is calculated over a large period of time, and because each time slice covered contributes equally to the aggregate, then the \"\"difference in Beta\"\" would really just be showing two pieces of information: Summarizing those two pieces of information into \"\"delta beta\"\" would not be useful to me. For further discussion, please see http://www.gummy-stuff.org/beta.htm specifically look at the huge difference in calculation of GE's beta using end-of-month returns versus calculation using day-before-end-of-month returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "572b0b647b8c274e1b9589e7e76f2098", "text": "\"It's only a \"\"loss\"\" if you believe the purpose of indexes is to represent the basket of underlying companies with the highest returns. But that's simply not true. An index is just a rules-based way to track/measure a thing. That thing could be the largest US companies, all the companies in a specific sector, all of the companies in the world, a commodity or basket of commodities... Pretty much anything. Somebody just has to write down the explanation of what an index tracks, then create ETFs to track the index. By being a \"\"passive investor\"\" you are still making active investing decisions to some degree, in that you need to decide which indexes to passively invest in. If people are not going to attempt to understand the companies they invest in because they're almost certainly better off indexing (which is fine), then the responsibility must fall on someone to make decisions about what are the best rules for the indexes. For most of the history of capital markets, good corporate governance has been enforced by shareholders. If management did something bad, shareholders could vote to replace the Board of Directors and in general they had tools to hold management accountable. Only in recent years, founders of companies like Google, Facebook, Snap, etc., have attempted to subvert this relationship (public shareholders give a company money, and in return the company must answer to the shareholders) and essentially take money for nothing. So far (it's still a pretty short experiment) this has worked as long as the share price is going up, but what happens when it doesn't? What happens when these companies screw up and stop performing well, and there's nothing shareholders can do about it? Investors who intentionally own individual shares will have little to no leverage to demand change, and passive investors would be stuck with some of their money in these companies with terrible governance - and the precedent would only make dual-class and non-voting shares more attractive for future IPOs, making the problem more prevalent. If you think it is in your best interest to own the entire S&P 500, plus Snap, then just do that. For every dollar you invest into SPDR or something similar, allocate something like $0.01 into Snap. It's that simple. But don't make this out to be a story about how S&P is anti-free markets or doing a disservice to investors. That's ridiculous. If most Americans are just going to blindly put their retirement savings into index funds without bothering to understand them (again, which is fine) then somebody needs to make sure the companies in said indexes are good companies. Historically, a company with zero corporate governance and entrenched management =/= a \"\"good company\"\". S&P realized this and decided to set a good precedent for US equity markets rather than a very bad precedent. You wanna buy shares with no voting rights? Go for it. But that should be your decision, not a default inclusion in major indexes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71dfdc41bb11e253a25fef090fbef6ae", "text": "It might mean Equal Weighted based on Market cap, rather than Price? For instance, All of MSCIs indexes are based on security's market cap, but then a factor is applied to give them equal weights once a quarter. From then on, weights will fluctuate based on market cap performance. Edit. Not sure why down voted, but you can check here http://www.msci.com/eqb/methodology/meth_docs/MSCI_Equal_Weighted_Indices_Methodology_May11.pdf So each quarter weights are set to be equal, but then between quarters the weights fluctuate due to performance", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9bd50818e7d46061b492c57025a9eb2b", "text": "Is there some evidence in the article or elsewhere that the purpose is to kill off these competitors rather than simply to compete? Competition is normally considered good in these kinds of situations, as it cranks out better efficiencies (for which an argument can be made here), but taking actions specifically for the purpose of killing off competition is not good because it reduces the pressures on efficiencies. Killing off competition by artificially lowering prices below real market value is considered dumping, but I don't really see evidence of that in the article. Is there some hidden somewhere or is the article just trying to make a point without any basis? I do have concerns about the Amazon play, but sensationalist or bias-driven reporting won't help me puzzle through them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bb40365ea193ef944818cd92378da144", "text": "He said he's using MSCI World as a benchmark. MSCI World is not an exchange. The point is the same security listed in different places has different prices, so how do you describe the equity beta of the company to MSCI World if you have multiple and different return streams? This is a real problem to consider and you just dismiss it entirely.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08885bc24c56500366b93c453fd7b691", "text": "\">Performance measurement in something like a manufacturing job, or cashier, or fry cook is fairly easy to measure. You rather obviously just don't have much experience with the actual working world of \"\"jobs\"\" outside of academia. IOW, your ignorant arrogance is showing. Dial it back.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95be0410551c4048ccab16ebb8d316c9", "text": "Generally S&P 500 will be used as the benchmark for US investors because it represents how's the US market performs as a whole. If you've outperformed the S&P 500 during the last couple years, great. However, at the end of day, you would want to look at the total growth percent that your portfolio has achieved, as compared with that of S&P 500. Anyway, your portfolio might actually ride along with the bull market during the 2009-2010 period (more-so for the small caps).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49a4e089e1558189fc81624d3f4d8ebc", "text": "I think the straight productivity curve is supposed to represent the idea that the economy is always growing as opposed to shrinking overall, like you said. I beleive the video leaves out the idea of innovation to keep it simpler and cut down on length(Of an already half hour video). Thanks for the connection between innovation and productivity. Im new to this stuff and it hadn't occured to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ec7d20b5c677efd4ec7050b333963bfe", "text": "\"From Investopedia: \"\"Beating the market\"\" is a difficult phrase to analyze. It can be used to refer to two different situations: 1) An investor, portfolio manager, fund or other investment specialist produces a better return than the market average. The market average can be calculated in many ways, but usually a benchmark - such as the S&P 500 or the Dow Jones Industrial Average index - is a good representation of the market average. If your returns exceed the percentage return of the chosen benchmark, you have beaten the market - congrats! (To learn more, read Benchmark Your Returns With Indexes.) 2) A company's earnings, sales or some other valuation metric is superior to that of other companies in its industry. Matching the market, I would presume will be generating returns equivalent to the index you are comparing your portfolio with. If for a sector/industry then it would be the returns generated by the sector/industry. As an index is more or less a juxtaposition of the market as a whole, people tend to use an index.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ced09ab3262b25c1ad703326db8ecd26", "text": "\"So it seems like a lot of people here aren't exactly sure about why this works and its financial implications. So what you are referring to is in Finance something called Funds Transfer Pricing or FTP (often referred to as just Transfer Pricing). Like anything else, FTP has its place. Most companies; however, don't use it properly. FTP, theoretically, has one primary purpose (although it's developed a second): to properly allocate opportunity costs across divisions. Let's say Company A produces widgets. They sell these widgets for $200 at a TOTAL COST of $150 and book profits of $50. Now to produce the widget Division 1 makes a computer chip at a cost of $50 that it then \"\"sells\"\" to Division 2 for $60. Division 1 then books a profit of $10. Division 2 then makes some plastic stuff and assembles the device. This is labor intensive so Division 2's costs are $100. Company A sells the completed device for $150. Division 2 subsequently books profits of $40, and appears much more profitable than Division 1, on the surface. The problem arises when Division 1 could sell the chip to the open market for $125. Now it costs them $50 to produce, and they could make a theoretical profit of $75. This is MORE than the company makes AS A WHOLE on the entire device. By having Division 2 pay effectively \"\"fair market price\"\" for that chip, you realize that Division 2 is really operating at a loss (the opportunity cost of not selling the chip to market is greater than producing the completed device). Company A would be better off getting rid of Division 2 and solely focusing on Division 1. In a good FTP system, Division 2 would pay the fair market price of $125. If done properly, management would hopefully realize it should divest Division 2. That's the *fundamental premise* behind FTP. In actuality things get much more complicated because of economics, the company itself, branding, IT, operations, management, PPE, labor laws, etc. Thats why most companies screw it up. All that other stuff falls under whats called cost allocation accounting. It gets VERY complex and entire masters courses are dedicated to it (different methods, etc.) The other thing you can do with FTP is get crazy tax breaks due to various tax laws. The simplified explanation is that divisions pay taxes on profits to the government *that division* is located in (this works on the state level, too btw.). GE does a lot of this and it's a big part of why they pay almost no-taxes. Again, it gets more complicated when you involve audits as there's some grey area legally. For simplicity, assume tax rates are 40% in the US and 10% in India. So let's say GE makes an airplane engine in the US but \"\"finishes\"\" manufacturing in India. These specific engines costs $5,000,000 for the US division to make, up to a certain point. The US division can then sell the engine at a break even to India. So India \"\"pays\"\" $5,000,000 for the engine. The US division then books no profit. India finishes the manufacturing with additional costs of $1,000,000. The India division then sells the engine to the open market for $9,000,000 . Therefore, the India division books a profit of $3,000,000 and pays taxes of $300,000. Now GE as a whole makes a profit of $3,000,000 less taxes of $300,000 = net profit of $2,700,00. Further, let's say the fair market value of the engine, as is, when the US sells to India is $7,000,000. That would mean US *should* book profits of $2,000,000 and India *should* book profits of $1,000,000. Total taxes by GE are now $800,000 (US) + $100,000 (India) = $900,000. However, what's important is that NET PROFIT is now $2,100,000. *GE just saved $600,000 in taxes by doing this. The beauty of this is, divisions are supposed to charge fair market value for products FTP'd internationally; however, it's REALLY hard for the IRS to say what the value of an unfinished product really is (heck, you could be offering bulk discounts, etc.)... The fact is, often, US divisions have skilled labor that is difficult to replicate elsewhere. They just show US divisions operating at losses to make the company as a whole better. The problem, again, arises when top management don't fully appreciate or understand the reasoning behind this stuff. They end up making cuts to US labor because it's \"\"unprofitable\"\" without thinking about the entire story. I know this is very long winded but hope it helps! tldr; companies FTP to recognizes profitability and opportunity costs of divisions as well as use it for overseas tax breaks.* Side note: Politically speaking, people who know how this works are pissed off about it in the U.S. (don't worry though, most politicians on both sides don't have a clue). We have high corporate tax rates relative to other countries and IRS loopholes allow this kind of thing (lobbying $$). It's also why, economically, you can't just raise *corporate* tax rates to increase domestic tax reciepts as more companies will just implement this process (it's complicated to do properly). Also, please don't say 50 years ago tax rates were higher and raising taxes increased receipts. The fact is most companies couldn't even FATHOM doing this 50 years ago, no less even 20. edit: some clarification in wording\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45a2171ad40bfae8c434faf68c330c3b", "text": "I won't repeat what's already been said, but I agree that it's a good move to take advantage of the free financing so long as you read the fine print carefully, keep the money designated to pay off this debt and not use it for anything else, and make sure to pay it off before you get smacked with some bad interest. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that this kind of offer can help build credit. You mentioned that you already have excellent credit, but for someone who has good credit, this could be an account that, if used carefully, could give their credit a boost by adding to their history of on-time payments.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b9c492aa32a542b9d0956a5300d9222c	Transfer of stock of non-public company after vesting	[ { "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": "d04463611f1cc42a2614271873cb0e89", "text": "I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "debd5e40e3327e8ec70f403b0a65963c", "text": "In the case you mentioned, where a private company owners will take debt with the purpose of buying out other owners, is this done through a share repurchases program (I understand private companies issue them, even though it's rare)? Thank you for the insights.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bd1a333f0d4845d3bfc8aa0017e0da31", "text": "\"Without any highly credible anticipation of a company being a target of a pending takeover, its common stock will normally trade at what can be considered non-control or \"\"passive market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that passive securities investors pay or receive for each share of stock. When there is talk or suggestion of a publicly traded company's being an acquisition target, it begins to trade at \"\"control market\"\" prices, i.e. prices that an investor or group of them is expected to pay in order to control the company. In most cases control requires a would-be control shareholder to own half a company's total votes (not necessarily stock) plus one additional vote and to pay a greater price than passive market prices to non-control investors (and sometimes to other control investors). The difference between these two market prices is termed a \"\"control premium.\"\" The appropriateness and value of this premium has been upheld in case law, with some conflicting opinions, in Delaware Chancery Court (see the reference below; LinkedIn Corp. is incorporated in the state), most other US states' courts and those of many countries with active stock markets. The amount of premium is largely determined by investment bankers who, in addition to applying other valuation approaches, review most recently available similar transactions for premiums paid and advise (formally in an \"\"opinion letter\"\") their clients what range of prices to pay or accept. In addition to increasing the likelihood of being outbid by a third-party, failure to pay an adequate premium is often grounds for class action lawsuits that may take years to resolve with great uncertainty for most parties involved. For a recent example and more details see this media opinion and overview about Dell Inc. being taken private in 2013, the lawsuits that transaction prompted and the court's ruling in 2016 in favor of passive shareholder plaintiffs. Though it has more to do with determining fair valuation than specifically premiums, the case illustrates instruments and means used by some courts to protect non-control, passive shareholders. ========== REFERENCE As a reference, in a 2005 note written by a major US-based international corporate law firm, it noted with respect to Delaware courts, which adjudicate most major shareholder conflicts as the state has a disproportionate share of large companies in its domicile, that control premiums may not necessarily be paid to minority shareholders if the acquirer gains control of a company that continues to have minority shareholders, i.e. not a full acquisition: Delaware case law is clear that the value of a dissenting [target company's] stockholder’s shares is not to be reduced to impose a minority discount reflecting the lack of the stockholders’ control over the corporation. Indeed, this appears to be the rationale for valuing the target corporation as a whole and allocating a proportionate share of that value to the shares of [a] dissenting stockholder [exercising his appraisal rights in seeking to challenge the value the target company's board of directors placed on his shares]. At the same time, Delaware courts have suggested, without explanation, that the value of the corporation as a whole, and as a going concern, should not include a control premium of the type that might be realized in a sale of the corporation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e0622d970d4c45fc8bc60f986f22d96c", "text": "My understanding was that if a company buys back shares then those shares are 'extinguished' I.e. the rest of the shareholders now own a greater portion of the company. However, if there is only one share left, then the company could not buy it because doing so would extinguish it leaving the company without an owner. That result would run contrary to the requirements for an incorporated company in countries like NZ and Australia.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23ef37a164c73863ee80e6e6f36c6079", "text": "\"Usually the big institution that \"\"floats\"\" the stock on the market is the one to offer it to you. The IPO company doesn't sell the stock itself, the big investment bank does it for them. IPO's shareholders/employees are generally not allowed to sell their shares at the IPO until some time passes. Then you usually see the sleuth of selling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a45963e72902ae54c1c2fc3a481ed44", "text": "Stocks represent partial ownership of the company. So, if you owned 51% of the stock of the company (and therefore 51% of the company itself), you could decide to liquidate all the assets of the company, and you would be entitled to 51% of the proceeds from that sale. In the example above, it would have to be Common Stock, as preferred stock does not confer ownership. *In a situation where it is not possible to buy 51% or more of the company (for example, it's not for sale), this is not possible, so the value of the stock could be much less.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82f690a6970b4b385556ab21e8dbe8ad", "text": "Fidelity has a good explanation of Restricted Stock Awards: For grants that pay in actual shares, the employee’s tax holding period begins at the time of vesting, and the employee’s tax basis is equal to the amount paid for the stock plus the amount included as ordinary compensation income. Upon a later sale of the shares, assuming the employee holds the shares as a capital asset, the employee would recognize capital gain income or loss; whether such capital gain would be a short- or long-term gain would depend on the time between the beginning of the holding period at vesting and the date of the subsequent sale. Consult your tax adviser regarding the income tax consequences to you. So, you would count from vesting for long-term capital gains purposes. Also note the point to include the amount of income you were considered to have earned as a result of the original vesting [market value then - amount you paid]. (And of course, you reported that as income in 2015/2016, right?) So if you had 300 shares of Stock ABC granted you in 2014 for a price of $5/share, and in 2015 100 of those shares vested at FMV $8/share, and in 2016 100 of those shares vested, current FMV $10/share, you had $300 in income in 2015 and $500 of income in 2016 from this. Then in 2017 you sold 200 shares for $15/share:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e8df4a19f9fc0bed3f4001f92f69ef45", "text": "\"You were probably not given stock, but stock options. Those options have a strike price and you can do some more research on them if needed. Lets assume that you were given 5K shares at a strike of 20, and they vest 20% per year. Assume the same thing in your second year and you are going to leave in year three. You would have 2K shares from your year 1 grant, and 1K shares from your year 2 grant, so 2K total. If you leave no more shares would be vested. If you leave you have one of two options: To complicate matters subsequent grants may have different strike prices, so perhaps year two grant is at $22 per share. However, in pre-public companies that is not likely the case. For a bit of history, I worked at a pre-ipo company and we were all going to get rich. I was given generous grants, but decided to leave. I really wanted to buy my options but simply didn't have the money. Shortly after I left the company folded, so the money would have been thrown away anyway. When a company is private the motivate their employees with tales of riches, but they are not required to disclose financial data. This company did a very good job of convincing employees that all was fine, when it wasn't. Also I received options in a publicly traded company. Myself and other employees received options that were \"\"underwater\"\" or worth far less than the strike price. You could let them expire so one did not owe money, but they were worthless. Hopefully that answers your question.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff2aa48a33ad116566c1f6a710a41290", "text": "Yes, all the shares of a publicly traded company can be purchased. This effectively takes the company private so that it's no longer traded on a stock market. Here are some examples: EDIT: to answer your edited question... the corporation can issue more stock. However that would dilute the value of existing shares. Thus, existing shareholders must vote to allow more shares to be issued. So... in your situation yes, you'd need to wait for someone else to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d090e456a27088b6844ae132bb20c829", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dea0d405a907670e628ba0a21b40785e", "text": "Coincidentally just read a nice post on this topic: http://thefinancebuff.com/no-tax-advantage-in-rsu.html In short, sell the stock as soon as it vests and treat it as a cash bonus. Assuming you're in the US and the stock is possible to sell (public company, no trading window restrictions, you have no material nonpublic information, etc.) What do you do with a cash bonus? If you have no savings, an emergency fund would be good, then start on retirement savings perhaps... it sounds a bit like you could use some broad general financial planning info, my favorite book for that is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/B0013L2ED6 One exception to selling immediately could be if the company stock is hugely undervalued, but it probably isn't, and it's probably too hard to determine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "922ae0ac97a125d6aea9d7bae67c61cf", "text": "No. Not directly. A company issues stock in order to raise capital for building its business. Once the initial shares are sold to the public, the company doesn't receive additional funds from future transactions of those shares of stock between the public. However, the company could issue more shares at the new higher price to raise more capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "165309d87f0fbec38ebe148c7e47f5ad", "text": "\"The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible \"\"exit\"\" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't \"\"cash out\"\" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave. The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eb31a78573b13e9d924f123bb975ab79", "text": "\"The \"\"par value\"\" is a technicality that you can ignore in this case, and it has nothing directly to do with the merger. When a company issues stock, it puts a \"\"par value\"\" on the shares. If it later issues more shares, they cannot be issued at less than par value. The rest of the notice seems to be as you said: If you hold until the merger takes effect, they are going to give you $25/share and your shares will be gone. As always, you can try to sell on the open market before that time instead, although you can bet that not too many people are going to want to give you more than $25/share at this point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c5517b21c3ae89021f4210b70fa0efc", "text": "These are treasury stocks allocated to the plan. If necessary, a company issues new shares (depending on a company it may require shareholders or only board approval).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b545fae53b133bd795b4fa731a150a65	New to investing — I have $20,000 cash saved, what should I do with it?	[ { "docid": "0f6f4def777749696c712bf0f2de1de0", "text": "You're not clueless at all. You don't mention that you have any debt, but if you have consumer debt, you might want to consider accelerating your payments on those debts unless you're already doing so. You and your wife have a baby on the way. They're an absolute joy (we have a 7-year-old), but they're also a financial strain. If I were in your shoes knowing what I know about your situation, I'd think carefully and go slowly with any investing until after you adjust to a larger family. That way you run less risk of having a sizable investment tank when you really need the money for your new baby. Continue to learn about investing. There's no reason to rush into something you're not comfortable with. If your goal is for a down payment on a house, then continue towards that. Cash is just fine for that. Shop around for a good house from someone who really needs to sell.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "caa46c8f2cf3636e2b3158da477b5895", "text": "@mbhunter and @JoeTaxpayer have given good advice. Were I in your situation, the only thing I might do differently is put whatever amount of cash not needed for emergencies in a money market fund with check-writing privileges and/or a debit card. The rate on the account has at least some chance of preserving the value of your principal, and it will be easier to put your money into investments as soon as you're ready. This sort of account is offered by any number of brokerages and financial companies, so pick one you trust and start there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "353db6eb7b80ef556ad888fbc61e711a", "text": "I have questions for you - As the others have stated, now really isn't the time to do anything to turn short term liquidity into long term investments. I'll contradict that only for matched 401(k) deposits. The answers to these questions will prompt more/better responses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7acbbba0cc389b3945e19b7f9eba5385", "text": "As @mbhunter says, make sure you pay off any debt you have first. Then, it's a good idea to keep some or all of your savings as an emergency fund. If you use every last dime to pay for a house, you'll have no cushion available when something breaks down. The most common recommendation I've seen is to have 3-6 months worth of expenses as an emergency fund. Once you have that, then you can start saving for your down payment. As @Victor says, try to find the best interest rate you can for that money, but I wouldn't invest it in any kind of stock or bond product, because your need for it is too short term. Safety is more important than growth given your time frame. When you're ready to invest, make sure you learn all you can. You don't want to invest in something you don't understand, because that's how you get ripped off. You can be reading and talking to people while you're saving for your house so that, when the time comes, you'll have a pretty good idea of what you want to do for investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88f95f3f33e6228d828d562ece97c1ed", "text": "\"Just my 2 cents, I read on the book, The WSJ Financial Guidebook for New Parents, that \"\"the average family spends between $11k and $16k raising their child during his first year\"\". So it might be better for you to make a budget including that cost, then decide how much money you feel safe to invest.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "515d2284f6f0b2b40aac463a34dff86d", "text": "This advice will be too specific, but... With the non-retirement funds, start by paying off the car loan if it's more than ~3% interest rate. The remainder: looks like a good emergency fund. If you don't have one of those yet, you do now. Store it in the best interest-bearing savings account you can find (probably accessible by online banking). If you wish to grow your emergency fund beyond $14-20,000 you might also consider some bonds, to boost your returns and add a little risk (but not nearly as much risk as stocks). With the Roth IRA - first of all, toss the precious metals. Precious metals are a crisis hedge and an advanced speculative instrument, not a beginner's investment strategy for 40% of the portfolio. You're either going to use this money for retirement, or your down payment fund. If it's retirement: you're 28; even with a kid on the way, you can afford to take risks in the retirement portfolio. Put it in either a targe-date fund or a series of index funds with an asset allocation suggested by an asset-allocation-suggestion calculator. You should probably have north of 80% stocks if it's money for retirement. If you're starting a down-payment fund, or want to save for something similar, or if you want to treat the IRA money like it's a down-payment fund, either use one of these Vanguard LifeStrategy funds or something that's structured to do the same sort of thing. I'm throwing Vanguard links at you because they have the funds with the low expense ratios. You can use Vanguard at your discretion if it's all an IRA (and not a 401(k)). Feel free to use an alternative, but watch the expense ratios lest they consume up to half your returns.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55befcc97bfdbd8a83808a632aad6bee", "text": "My advice to you is not to take any advice from anyone when it comes to investing, especially when you don't know much about what you are investing in. mbhunter is correct, take your time to learn about what you want to invest in. If your goal at the moment is short term don't invest in stocks unless you really know what you are doing. Put your money where you can get the highest interest rate, continue saving and do a lot of research on the house you wish to buy. Even if you are not ready to buy a house yet, start looking so that by the time you are ready to buy, you know how much the house is really worth. Before buying our house we spent about 7 months looking and researching and looked at more than 100 houses.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "093f3566e7f45603ef2145a5e755b561", "text": "Another thought: Higher education in the US is frightfully expensive with the sticker price for a 4-year undergraduate degree at a decent private college us sitting at around $250,000 and rising fast. Consider starting a 529 savings plan especially if you planning on more kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e6f35098b4eace30b2e36802e1eef540", "text": "I don't agree with others regarding paying off debt ASAP. You only have auto loan and auto loans are actually good for your credit score. With a mere $6k balance, it is not like you are going to have a problem paying off the loan. Not only that you will build your credit score and this will come in handy when you are purchasing a home. With the Federal Reserve setting the interest rate at 0% until 2015, I can't understand why people would pay off anything ASAP. As long as you don't have revolving credit card balances, you are in the clear. I don't know your salary nor how big your porfolio is but I would save 5 months expense in cash and dump the rest in precious metals. Holding cash is the worst thing you could be doing (unless you predict a deflation). You said you already have 40% in precious metals. You are already way ahead of other 95% of Americans by protecting your purchasing power. Follow your gut. The stormg is coming and it's not going to get any better.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6d34a84c720f48c3f5affaf68c7209c3", "text": "\"This is only a partial answer to your question #1. If you have a conservative approach to savings (and, actually, even if you don't), you should not invest all of your money in any single industry or product. If you want to invest some money in oil, okay, but don't overdo it. If your larger goal is to invest the money in a manner that is less risky but still more lucrative than a savings account, you should read up on personal finance and investing to get a sense of what options are available. A commonly-recommended option is to invest in low-cost index funds that mirror the performance of the stock market as a whole. The question of \"\"how should I invest\"\" is very broad, but you can find lots of starting points in other questions on this site, by googling, or by visiting your local library.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e11f48f38fded130cb724d3ba6f7cb13", "text": "I encourage using it as a buffer. After h.s. I had a thousand or so dollars saved up in my savings account. After college it was maybe 5 thousand and it's remained roughly like that ever since. I figure any modest emergency or spending splurge may cost, at most, a couple thousand bucks. I'm talking about a new couch, a car accident, hospital bill, vacation to wherever, etc. It's nice to have an idea of a buffer. Financial advisors say to have a buffer of about 3 months of salary. This is in case of unemployment and such. It was smart for me. I wouldn't try to spend money to make money at this point. It's not enough money to try to see a significant gain unless you're lucky. I tried Sharebuilder a while ago with $200 to see what stocks were like. They gave you several free trades to see how you liked it. At first I was shuffling stuff a little too much and once the fees start kicking in it's 7 bucks here, 7 bucks there- eventually I realized you have to invest enough to offset the transfer fees and the fact that you have your money tied up in something going up and down all the time. But yeah. Start with a buffer and scale it up as your lifestyle changes. Anything beyond your buffer is spending money, investing money, fun money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "074ea5e57c752ea120f2017f3eceb057", "text": "\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "645b5652a6f879ab54115823df1bb1de", "text": "Market rate of return averages about 8% annually (sometimes more, sometimes less or negative). To get 30k monthly -- even taking that as pretax -- you're talking about 360k yearly. Divide that by 0.08 and you need to have savings of 4.5 million--- and really you should double that for safety.. Tl;dr: forget it. Added thought: If you really have $20k/month coming in, you really have no business asking the Internet for advice. Hire a professional financial advisor (not a broker, someone who is paid a flat fee for their expertise and has no incentives to give you less-than-optimal advice). . The money they will save/make for you will more than pay for their hire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8c02e6688204010336c8922e5418df0f", "text": "\"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "62769608f166b86eac37da984ac5e9f8", "text": "\"Nobody has mentioned your \"\"risk tolerance\"\" and \"\"investment horizon\"\" for this money. Any answer should take into account whether you can afford to lose it all, and how soon you'll need your investment to be both liquid and above water. You can't make any investment decision at all and might as well leave it in a deposit-insured, zero-return account until you inderstand those two terms and have answers for your own situation.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "391d43d1cf4f10b5872dc46e5f2045f0", "text": "Alright so you have $12,000 and you want to know what to do with it. The main thing here is, you're new to investments. I suggest you don't do anything quick and start learning about the different kinds of investment options that can be available to you with returns you might appreciate. The most important questions to ask yourself is what are your life goals? What kind of financial freedom do you want, and how important is this $12,000 dollars to you in achieving your life goals. My best advice to you and to anyone else who is looking for a place to put their money in big or small amounts when they have earned this money not from an investment but hard work is to find a talented and professional financial advisor. You need to be educated on the options you have, and keep them in lines of what risks you are willing to take and how important that principal investment is to you. Investing your money is not easy at all, and novices tend to lose their money a lot. The same way you would ask a lawyer for law advice, its best to consult a financial planner for advice, or so they can invest that money for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fedc731ab6ca2dc898e6b0f3972279a9", "text": "\"Put it in a Vanguard fund with 80% VTI and 20% VXUS. That's what you'll let set for 10-15 years. For somebody that is totally new to investing, use \"\"play money\"\" in the stock market. It's easy for young people to get dreams of glory and blow it all on some stock tip they've seen on Twitter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c0129ccf189b8444f3ea2693d965ba8", "text": "\"First off, I would label this as speculation, not investing. There are many variables that you don't seem to be considering, and putting down such a small amount opens you to a wide variety of risks. Not having an \"\"emergency fund\"\" for the rental increases that risk greatly. (I assume that you would not have an emergency fund based upon \"\"The basic idea is to save up a 20% down payment on a property and take out a mortgage\"\".) This type of speculation lent a hand in the housing bubble. Is your home paid off? If not you can reduce your personal risk (by owning your home), and have a pretty safe investment in real estate. Mission accomplished. My hope for you would be that you are also putting money in the market. Historically it has performed quite well while always having its share of \"\"chicken littles\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "282a19e1d7ad4b6cbbb606ae59f137c0", "text": "\"I'm not a fan of using cash for \"\"emergency\"\" savings. Put it in a stable investment that you can liquidate fairly quickly if you have to. I'd rather use credit cards for a while and then pay them off with investment funds if I must. Meanwhile those investments earn a lot more than the 0.1 percent savings or money market accounts will. Investment grade bond funds, for example, should get you a yield of between 4-6% right now. If you want to take a longer term view put that money into a stock index fund like QQQ or DIA. There is the risk it will go down significantly in a recession but over time the return is 10%. (Currently a lot more than that!) In any event you can liquidate securities and get the money into your bank is less than a week. If you leave it in cash it basically earns nothing while you wait for that rainy day which many never come.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5962b3b7eac619b9f8797580b9e859f", "text": "The 20x number is drawn directly from the assumption that it should be easy to get more than 4% average return on investment. After lots of historical studies, Monte Carlo simulations, and the like there was a consensus that saving more didn't significantly increase the odds of achieving at least the desired yearly income sustainably. (That's the same calculations the insurance firms use as the starting point for writing annuities.) There are also some assumptions about inflation and its interaction with the market built into this rule-of-thumb. Note that this is 20x what you want as post-retirement income, not necessarily 20x your current income. I have a moderately frugal lifestyle, And my budget confirms that my actual spending -- even in years when I allow myself a splurge -- is well below my current income, with the excess going into the investments. To sustain my lifestyle, I need that lower number plus any taxes that'll be due on it plus whatever I want to allocate as average emergency reserve... and theoretically I should be able to base the 20x on that lower number. When I run estimates (Quicken has a tool for this, so does my credit union, I presume others are widely available), they tend to confirm this. I'm still using the higher number for planning, though. I don't feel any need to retire early (though I have issues with my current manager), and I have no objection at all to being able to afford better toys on occasion. Or to leaving a legacy to friends, relatives, and/or charity. But it's nice to know exactly when I could punt the day job if I wanted to.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ed992ef040f2a59f2b1a2325d53e3fdd", "text": "\"I'm not a financial expert... In my opinion it might be best to have as much in savings (aka being liquid and the funds are insured by the FDIC) as possible for a couple of reasons. If you lose your job, your equity line could then get frozen if the bank finds out. What you want to avoid is only owing 20 grand on your home (because you paid a chunk off with your savings) but because you lost your job you can't take any money out of your home and suddenly you are equity rich, cash poor, and jobless, that is a potential for big trouble. I'm curious why you borrowed on the Heloc since you seem to have a significant amount in savings anyways. What you really might want to look into is lowering your mortgage interest rate to around 3.5% I would use the credit card debt as a reality check. Make sure every month you are making at least a 10% to 15% of the total due payment. This dilutes the interest rate charge and lets you see the true \"\"drag\"\" credit card debt payments really have on your life. I don't know this for sure but the higher amount credit card payments you make probably reflects well on your credit score, and of course, never be late with the credit card payments either.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4204f26bc88bab658ce2be226976e79", "text": "\"Since I, personally, agree with the investment thesis of Peter Schiff, I would take that sum and put it with him in a managed account, and leave it there. I'm not sure how to find a firm that you like the investment strategy of. I think that it's too complicated to do as a side thing. Someone needs to be spending a lot of time researching various instruments and figuring out what is undervalued or what is exposed to changing market trends or whatever. I basically just want to give my money to someone and say \"\"I agree with your investment philosophy, let me pay you to manage my money, too.\"\" No one knows who is right, of course. I think Schiff is right, so that's where I would put the amount of money you're talking about. If you disagree with his investment philosophy, this doesn't really make any sense to do. For that amount of money, though, I think firms would be willing to sit down with you and sell you their services. You could ask them how they would diversify this money given the goals that you have for it, and pick one that you agree with the most.\"", "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": "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": "" } ]	fiqa
87a09474c029e3559971c1394da7b517	Who owns historical valuations about equity such as stocks and index funds?	[ { "docid": "ad0a217c2532cb01456a088330002756", "text": "\"I expect that data may be copyright. Data that's published (e.g. on a newsfeed or web site) is subject to terms of use. Standard & Poor's web site says, about the Shiller indexes, Who do I contact at S&P to license my use of these indices? Questions regarding licensing the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices can be addressed to: Bo Chung Managing Director bo_chung@standardandpoors.com, +1.212.438.3519 As for 'recording' the information yourself, that may depend on how and where (e.g. from what source) you're recording it. If for example you tried to record prices from the Canadian MLS (Realtor's) network, they too have their own terms of use on the data they publish. Copyright laws vary from country to country (and terms of use certainly vary): for example see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural which is case law about copyrighting a phone directory in the USA, and contrast that with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_right which is European legislation. So who owns data if it is determined by free market? I guess that \"\"determined by free market\"\" means that buyers and sellers are publishing their offers-to-buy and their offers-to-sell, and I guess that the publisher (e.g. the stock exchange) has 'terms of use' about the data (the offers) that they're publishing.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ebb41def0224a718e83f9f53e5a8e812", "text": "\"The textbook answer would be \"\"assets-liabilities+present discounted value of all future profit\"\". A&L is usually simple (if a company has an extra $1m in cash, it's worth $1m more; if it has an extra $1m in debt, it's worth $1m less). If a company with ~0 assets and $50k in profit has a $1m valuation, then that implies that whoever makes that valuation (wants to buy at that price) really believes one of two things - either the future profit will be significantly larger than $50k (say, it's rapidly growing); or the true worth of assets is much more - say, there's some IP/code/patents/people that have low book value but some other company would pay $1m just to get that. The point is that valuation is subjective since the key numbers in the calculations are not perfectly known by anyone who doesn't have a time machine, you can make estimates but the knowledge to make the estimates varies (some buyers/sellers have extra information), and they can be influenced by those buyers/sellers; e.g. for strategic acquisitions the value of company is significantly changed simply because someone claims they want to acquire it. And, $1m valuation for a company with $500m in profits isn't appropriate - it's appropriate only if the profits are expected to drop to zero within a couple years; a stagnant but stable company with $500m profits would be worth at least $5m and potentially much more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "503261d5bff005c524a8682b785a5b54", "text": "International equity are considered shares of companies, which are headquartered outside the United States, for instance Research in Motion (Canada), BMW (Germany), UBS (Switzerland). Some investors argue that adding international equities to a portfolio can reduce its risk due to regional diversification.", "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": "84a5feca8c5035f6b1cf0e7cf1f8e6ee", "text": "A company as large as Home Depot will have a fairly robust Human Resources department and would probably be able to steer you in the right direction: odds are they know the name of the brokerage and other particulars. I did some googling around, their # is (1-866-698-4347). Different states have different rules about how long an institution can have assets abandoned before turning them over to the state. California, as an example, has an abandoned property search site that you can use. That being said, I had some penny stocks sitting in a brokerage account I never touched for about 20 years and when I finally logged back in there they were, still sitting there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db2f63f6fc2c53219ecac35428d7ce7d", "text": "You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records, Lawson Software Inc listed on the NASDAQ on 7 Dec 2001 and delisted on 6 Jul 2011. Its final traded price was $11.23. It was taken over by Infor who bid $11.25 per share. Source: Symbol LWSN-201107 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.", "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": "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": "" }, { "docid": "f81fb150c1a83393045b2b22615bbfde", "text": "Willis Group Holdings Set to Join the S&P 500; Fossil Group to Join S&P MidCap 400; Adeptus Health to Join S&P SmallCap 600 notes in part for the S & P case: Willis Group Holdings plc (NYSE:WSH) will replace Fossil Group Inc. (NASD:FOSL) in the S&P 500, and Fossil Group will replace Towers Watson & Co. (NASD:TW) in the S&P MidCap 400 after the close of trading on Monday, January 4. Willis Group is merging with Towers Watson in a deal expected to be completed on or about that date pending final conditions. Post merger, Willis Group Holdings will change its name to Willis Towers Watson plc and trade under the ticker symbol “WLTW”. Fossil has a market capitalization that is more representative of the midcap market space. As of Jan. 8, Fossil is about $1.44B in market cap and Willis is $21.02B for those wondering. Apple with a market cap of $540.58B is 3.26% of the index making the entire index worth approximately $16,582.21B, so Fossil is worth .00868% of the overall index for those wanting some numbers here. Thus, if a company acquires another and becomes bigger than there can be replacements made in those indices that have an artificial number of small members. Alternatively, a member may be removed for lack of representation where it is just so small compared to other companies that may be a better fit as some indices could be viewed as actively managed in a sense. In contrast, there are indices like those from Russell, known for the Russell 2000 small-cap index: Q: Why don't you reconstitute the indexes more often than once a year? A: Maintaining representative indexes must be weighed against the costs associated with making frequent changes to index constituents (namely, buying and selling stocks). The Russell Indexes are annually reconstituted because our research has shown that this strikes a reasonable balance between accuracy and cost. We originally reconstituted our indexes quarterly, then semi-annually, but found these options to be suboptimal. Our extensive research demonstrates that annual reconstitution accurately represents the capitalization segments and minimizes the turnover required to reflect the segments as they change. Thus there can be different scenarios. Then there can be the effect on index funds when price-weighted indices like the Dow Jones Industrial Average has a member that does a stock split that causes some rebalancing too. On the DJIA Divisor: The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a price-weighted index that is calculated by dividing the sum of the prices of the 30 component stocks (Dow Jones Industrial Average components) by a number called the DJIA Divisor or Dow Divisor . The index divisor is updated periodically and adjusted to offset the effect of stock splits, bonus issues or any change in the component stocks included in the DJIA. This is done in order to keep the index value consistent.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12226cbcd9d23ce4d27dc0efef65eece", "text": "Don't have access to a Bloomberg, Eikon ect terminal but I was wondering if those that do know of any functions that show say, the percentage of companies (in different Mcap ranges) held by differing rates institutionally. For example - if I wanted to compare what percentage of small cap companies' shares are 75% or more held by institutions relative to large cap companies what could I search in the terminal?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39e680ba097f0ffc975fb39a29e5dcd0", "text": "Check the answers to this Stackoverflow question https://stackoverflow.com/questions/754593/source-of-historical-stock-data a number of potential sources are listed", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0643549bec4cfd3d47f375fa02daa3dc", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b2b5a994cca7939cf4143da8b2514a0", "text": "\"I had both closing price and adjusted price of Apple showing the same amount after \"\"download data\"\" csv file was opened in excel. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/history?period1=1463599361&period2=1495135361&interval=div%7Csplit&filter=split&frequency=1d Its frustrating. My last option was to get the dividends history of the stock and add back to the adjusted price to compute the total return for a select stock for the period.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "366110afc6c37433dbbd7d11fa1dd8a6", "text": "If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90f3ac4042a941d61e7a35f1938326dc", "text": "\"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c0ef579af3a41287177f58384446190", "text": "\"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it? Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are \"\"owned\"\" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever. All those investment vehicles allow people to care about ... is the share price.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
c004e2d2f3cb53f70e3ff4d70e6638b0	Are SPDR funds good for beginners?	[ { "docid": "03afa29a7bfd96bf54223f0adb7e71a8", "text": "No, SPDR ETFs are not a good fit for a novice investor with a low level of financial literacy. In fact, there is no investment that is safe for an absolute beginner, not even a savings account. (An absolute beginner could easily overdraw his savings account, leading to fees and collections.) I would say that an investment becomes a good fit for an investor as soon as said investor understands how the investment works. A savings account at a bank or credit union is fairly easy to understand and is therefore a suitable place to hold money after a few hours to a day of research. (Even after 0 hours of research, however, a savings account is still better than a sock drawer.) Money market accounts (through a bank), certificates of deposit (through a bank), and money market mutual funds (through a mutual fund provider) are probably the next easiest thing to understand. This could take a few hours to a few weeks of research depending on the learner. Equities, corporate bonds, and government bonds are another step up in complexity, and could take weeks or months of schooling to understand well enough to try. Equity or bond mutual funds -- or the ETF versions of those, which is what you asked about -- are another level after that. Also important to understand along the way are the financial institutions and market infrastructure that exist to provide these products: banks, credit unions, public corporations, brokerages, stock exchanges, bond exchanges, mutual fund providers, ETF providers, etc.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1034f141e13d0ab627501a394187997c", "text": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3c0b89345b97cedbae31d67280424bad", "text": "Your question is actually quite broad, so will try to split it into it's key parts: Yes, standard bank ISAs pay very poor rates of interest at the moment. They are however basically risk free and should track inflation. Any investment in the 6-7% return range at the moment will be linked to stock. Stock always carries large risks (~50% swings in capital are pretty standard in the short run. In the long run it generally beats every other asset class by miles). If you can’t handle those types of short terms swings, you shouldn’t get involved. If you do want to invest in stock, there is a hefty ignorance tax waiting at every corner in terms of how brokers construct their fees. In a nutshell, there is a different best value broker in the UK for virtually every band of capital, and they make their money through people signing up when they are in range x, and not moving their money when they reach band y; or just having a large marketing budget and screwing you from the start (Nutmeg at ~1% a year is def in this category). There isn't much of an obvious way around this if you are adamant you don't want to learn about it - the way the market is constructed is just a total predatory minefield for the complete novice. There are middle ground style investments between the two extremes you are looking at: bonds, bond funds and mixes of bonds and small amounts of stock (such as the Vanguard income or Conservative Growth funds outlined here), can return more than savings accounts with less risk than stocks, but again its a very diverse field that's hard to give specific advice about without knowing more about what your risk tolerance, timelines and aims are. If you do go down this (or the pure stock fund) route, it will need to be purchased via a broker in an ISA wrapper. The broker charges a platform fee, the fund charges a fund fee. In both cases you want these as low as possible. The Telegraph has a good heat map for the best value ISA platform providers by capital range here. Fund fees are always in the key investor document (KIID), under 'ongoing charges'.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d52e4bc33d7fbd7bb988121784a3e0fc", "text": "It depends what you want to do with them. If you are just simply going to drip-feed into pre-identified shares or ETFs every few months at the market price, you don't need fancy features: just go with whoever is cheaper. You can always open another account later if you need something more exotic. Some brokerages are associated with banks and that may give you a benefit if you already deal with that bank: faster transfers (anz-etrade), or zero brokerage (westpac brokerage on westpac structured products.) There's normally no account fee so you can shop around.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c44d62e3ce8df5859c2428ecb00f5a3", "text": "Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a519077e8b48ef99b0d20e77a981deb0", "text": "Thank you fgunthar. I was not aware of ILWs, but I agree - this is also the closest thing I've found. As for starting a fund, I'm unfortunately nowhere near that point. But, my curiosity seems to inevitably lead me to obscure areas like ILWs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "189074bc66e38dfa800eb176139e72b2", "text": "\"I've been down the consolidation route too (of a handful of DC pensions; the DB ones I've not touched, and you would indeed need advice to move those around). What you should be comparing against is: what's the cheapest possible thing you could be doing? Monevators' online platform list will give you an idea of SIPP costs (if your pot is big enough and you're a buy-and-hold person, ATS' flat-fee model means costs can become arbitrarily close to zero percent), and if you're happy to be invested in something like Vanguard Lifestrategy, Target Retirement or vanilla index trackers then charges on those will be something like 0.1%-0.4%. Savings of 0.5-1.0% per year add up over pension saving timescales, but only you can decide whether whatever extra the adviser is offering vs. a more DIY approach is worth it for you. Are you absolutely sure that 0.75% pa fee isn't on top of whatever charges are built into the funds he'll invest you in? For the £1000 fee, advisers claim to have high costs per customer because of \"\"regulatory burdens\"\"; this is why there's talk of an \"\"advice gap\"\" these days: if you only have a small sum to invest, the fixed costs of advice become intolerable. IMHO, nutmeg are still quite expensive for what they offer too (although still probably cheaper than any \"\"advised\"\" route).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8252f119c4f67b1a6d985f5543019804", "text": "The numbers you have quoted don't add up. For Rs 30,000 / month is 3,60,000 a year. The tax should be around 11,000 again this will be reduced by the contributions to PF. You have indicated a tax deductions of 18,000. There are multiple ways to save taxes. Since you are beginner, investments into section 80C should give you required tax benefits. Please read this article in Economic Times", "title": "" }, { "docid": "12b393f48f29a67fb2145c2685cdab24", "text": "\"Some of the other answers recommended peer-to-peer lending and property markets. I would not invest in either of these. Firstly, peer-to-peer lending is not a traditional investment and we may not have enough historical data for the risk-to-return ratio. Secondly, property investments have a great risk unless you diversify, which requires a huge portfolio. Crowd-funding for one property is not a traditional investment, and may have drawbacks. For example, what if you disagree with other crowd-funders about the required repairs for the property? If you invest in the property market, I recommend a well-diversified fund that owns many properties. Beware of high debt leverage used to enhance returns (and, at the same time, risk) and high fees when selecting a fund. However, traditionally it has been a better choice to invest in stocks than to invest in property market. Beware of anyone who says that the property market is \"\"too good to not get into\"\" without specifying which part of the world is meant. Note also that many companies invest in properties, so if you invest only in a well-diversified stock index fund, you may already have property investments in your portfolio! However, in your case I would keep the money in risk-free assets, i.e. bank savings or a genuine low-cost money market fund (i.e. one that doesn't invest in corporate debt or in variable-rate loans which have short duration but long maturity). The reason is that you're going to be unemployed soon, and thus, you may need the money soon. If you have an investment horizon of, say, 10 years, then I would throw stocks into the mix, and if you're saving for retirement, then I would go all in to stocks. In the part of the world where I live in, money market funds generally have better return than bank savings, and better diversification too. However, your 2.8% interest sounds rather high (the money market fund I have in the past invested in currently yields at 0.02%, but then again I live in the eurozone), so be sure to get estimates for the yields of different risk-free assets. So, my advice for investing is simple: risk-free assets for short time horizon, a mixture of stocks and risk-free assets for medium time horizon, and only stocks for long time horizon. In any case, you need a small emergency fund, too, which you should consider a thing separate from your investments. My emergency fund is 20 000 EUR. Your 50 000 AUD is bit more than 30 000 EUR, so you don't really have that much money to invest, only a bit more than a reasonably sized emergency fund. But then again, I live in rental property, so my expenses are probably higher than yours. If you can foresee a very long time horizon for part of your investment, you could perhaps invest 50% of your money to stocks (preference being a geographically diversified index fund or a number of index funds), but I wouldn't invest more because of the need for an emergency fund.\"", "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": "bffeaf61787f6b4ab0868de12b79540f", "text": "\"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "351fdf0447a27914d72272e67c26e408", "text": "First: it sounds like you are already making wise choices with your cash surplus. You've looked for ways to keep that growing ahead of inflation and you have made use of tax shelters. So for the rest of this answer I am going to assume you have between 3-6 months expenses already saved up as a “rainy day fund” and you're ready for more sophisticated approaches to growing your funds. To answer this part: Are there any other ways that I can save/ invest that I am not currently doing? Yes, you could look at, for example: 1. Peer to peer These services let you lend to a 'basket' of borrowers and receive a return on your money that is typically higher than what's offered in cash savings accounts. Examples of peer to peer networks are Zopa, Ratesetter and FundingCircle. This involves taking some risks with your money – Zopa's lending section explains the risks. 2. Structured deposits These are a type of cash deposit product where, in return for locking your money away for a time (typically 5 years), you get the opportunity for higher returns e.g. 5% + / year. Your deposit is usually guaranteed under the FSCS (Financial services compensation scheme), however, the returns are dependent on the performance of a stock market index such as the FTSE 100 being higher in x years from now. Also, structured deposits usually require a minimum £3,000 investment. 3. Index funds You mention watching the stock prices of a few companies. I agree with your conclusion – I wouldn't suggest trying to choose individual stocks at this stage. Price history is a poor predictor of future performance, and markets can be volatile. To decide if a stock is worth buying you need to understand the fundamentals, be able to assess the current stock price and future outlook, and be comfortable accepting a range of different risks (including currency and geographic risk). If you buy shares in a small number of companies, you are concentrating your risk (especially if they have things in common with each other). Index funds, while they do carry risks, let you pool your money with other investors to buy shares in a 'basket' of stocks to replicate the movement of an index such as the FTSE All Share. The basket-of-stocks approach at least gives you some built-in diversification against the risks of individual stocks. I suggest index funds (as opposed to actively managed funds, where you pay a management fee to have your investments chosen by a professional who tries to beat the market) because they are low cost and easier to understand. An example of a very low cost index fund is this FTSE All Share tracker from Aberdeen, on the Hargreaves Lansdown platform: http://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/a/aberdeen-foundation-growth-accumulation General principle on investing in stock market based index funds: You should always invest with a 5+ year time horizon. This is because prices can move up and down for reasons beyond your anticipation or control (volatility). Time can smooth out volatility; generally, the longer the time period, the greater your likelihood of achieving a positive return. I hope this answer so far helps takes into account the excess funds. So… to answer the second part of your question: Or would it be best to start using any excess funds […] to pay off my student loan quicker? Your student loan is currently costing you 0.9% interest per annum. At this rate it's lower than the last 10 years average inflation. One argument: if you repay your student loan this is effectively a 0.9% guaranteed return on every pound repaid – This is the equivalent of 1.125% on a cash savings account if you're paying basic rate tax on the interest. An opposing argument: 0.9% is lower than the last 10 years' average inflation in the UK. There are so many advantages to making a start with growing your money for the long term, due to the effects of compound returns, that you might choose to defer your loan repayments for a while and focus on building up some investments that stand a chance to beat inflation in the long term.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f665baca9e2e42ab39bf00e9fb75c8b", "text": "Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "05f4925f5d8fd3d6ddd0d008ab149723", "text": "The partition is more or less ok, the specific products are questionable. Partition. It's usually advised to keep 2-3 monthly income liquid. In your case, 40-45 kEUR is ca. 24-27 kEUR netto, i.e. 2000-2250 a month, thus, the range is 4-7 kEUR, as you are strongly risk-averse then 7k is still ok. Then they propose you to invest 60% in low-risk, but illiquid and 15% in middle or high risk which is also ok. However, it doesn't have to be real estate, but could be. Specifics. Be aware that a lot (most?) of the banks (including local banks, they are, however, less aggressive) often sell the products that promise high commissions to them (often with a part flowing directly to your client advisor). Especially now, when the interest rates are low, they stand under extra pressure. You should rather switch to passively managed funds with low fees. If you stick up to the actively managed funds with their fees, you should choose them yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21644dc58ac157d153254c1422b6763b", "text": "I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8abab3a7c58f602a64ee42553c53c2d9", "text": "\"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f35fb93160b28a7119a109c20e88b3ac	How to make use of EUR/USD fluctuations in my specific case?	[ { "docid": "eda543db876b5d150a730688db867bef", "text": "This is called currency speculation, and it's one of the more risky forms of investing. Unless you have a crystal ball that tells you the Euro will move up (or down) relative to the Dollar, it's purely speculation, even if it seems like it's on an upswing. You have to remember that the people who are speculating (professionally) on currency are the reason that the amount changed, and it's because something caused them to believe the correct value is the current one - not another value in one direction or the other. This is not to say people don't make money on currency speculation; but unless you're a professional investor, who has a very good understanding of why currencies move one way or the other, or know someone who is (and gives free advice!), it's not a particularly good idea to engage in it - while stock trading is typically win-win, currency speculation is always zero-sum. That said, you could hedge your funds at this point (or any other) by keeping some money in both accounts - that is often safer than having all in one or the other, as you will tend to break even when one falls against the other, and not suffer significant losses if one or the other has a major downturn.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "60f3356747247bc63b7afea2a1b05324", "text": "Remember that converting from EU to USD and the other way around always costs you money, at least 0.5% per conversion. Additionally, savings accounts in EU and USA have different yields, you may want to compare which country offers you the best yields and move your money to the highest yielding account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aeef25d59c01d9382647746f9d7cada", "text": "\"I would make this a comment but I am not allowed apparently. Unless your continent blows up, you'll never lost all your money. Google \"\"EUR USD\"\" if you want news stories or graphs on this topic. If you're rooting for your 10k USD (but not your neighbors), you want that graph to trend downward.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "db7a27bf0afb30d12a004f760578f6a8", "text": "\"is there anything I can do now to protect this currency advantage from future volatility? Generally not much. There are Fx hedges available, however these are for specialist like FI's and Large Corporates, traders. I've considered simply moving my funds to an Australian bank to \"\"lock-in\"\" the current rate, but I worry that this will put me at risk of a substantial loss (due to exchange rates, transfer fees, etc) when I move my funds back into the US in 6 months. If you know for sure you are going to spend 6 months in Australia. It would be wise to money certain amount of money that you need. So this way, there is no need to move back funds from Australia to US. Again whether this will be beneficial or not is speculative and to an extent can't be predicted.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c4928107daac55e5455a1f8a674e89ce", "text": "Use other currencies, if available. I'm not familiar with the banking system in South Africa; if they haven't placed any currency freezes or restrictions, you might want to do this sooner than later. In full crises, like Russian and Ukraine, once the crisis worsened, they started limiting purchases of foreign currencies. PayPal might allow currency swaps (it implies that it does at the bottom of this page); if not, I know Uphold does. Short the currency Brokerage in the US allow us to short the US Dollar. If banks allow you to short the ZAR, you can always use that for protection. I looked at the interest rates in the ZAR to see how the central bank is offsetting this currency crisis - WOW - I'd be running, not walking toward the nearest exit. A USA analogy during the late 70s/early 80s would be Paul Volcker holding interest rates at 2.5%, thinking that would contain 10% inflation. Bitcoin Comes with significant risks itself, but if you use it as a temporary medium of exchange for swaps - like Uphold or with some bitcoin exchanges like BTC-e - you can get other currencies by converting to bitcoin then swapping for other assets. Bitcoin's strength is remitting and swapping; holding on to it is high risk. Commodities I think these are higher risk right now as part of the ZAR's problem is that it's heavily reliant on commodities. I looked at your stock market to see how well it's done, and I also see that it's done poorly too and I think the commodity bloodbath has something to do with that. If you know of any commodity that can stay stable during uncertainty, like food that doesn't expire, you can at least buy without worrying about costs rising in the future. I always joke that if hyperinflation happened in the United States, everyone would wish they lived in Utah.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b9584a6f6554b2d2367ec417532961f0", "text": "e.g. a European company has to pay 1 million USD exactly one year from now While that is theoretically possible, that is not a very common case. Mostly likely if they had to make a 1 million USD payment a year from now and they had the cash on hand they would be able to just make the payment today. A more common scenario for currency forwards is for investment hedging. Say that European company wants to buy into a mutual fund of some sort, say FUSEX. That is a USD based mutual fund. You can't buy into it directly with Euros. So if the company wants to buy into the fund they would need to convert their Euros to to USD. But now they have an extra risk parameter. They are not just exposed to the fluctuations of the fund, they are also exposed to the fluctuations of the currency market. Perhaps that fund will make a killing, but the exchange rate will tank and they will lose all their gains. By creating a forward to hedge their currency exposure risk they do not face this risk (flip side: if the exchange rate rises in a favorable rate they also don't get that benefit, unless they use an FX Option, but that is generally more expensive and complicated).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "15404acf93f7162857cc0bc696e09b11", "text": "\"There are firms that let you do this. I believe that Saxo Bank is one such firm (note that I'm not endorsing the company at all, and have no experience with it) Keep in mind that the reason that these currencies are \"\"exotic\"\" is because the markets for trading are small. Small markets are generally really bad for retail/non-professional investors. (Also note: I'm not trying to insult Brazil or Thailand, which are major economies. In this context, I'm specifically concerned with currency trading volume.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1045b2db53cd0bc42ef37ebd4f8aad91", "text": "About the inflation or low interest rates in both the countries is out of the equation especially since rupee is always a low currency compared to Euro. You cannot make profit in Euros using rupee or vice-versa. It all depends on where you want to use the money, in India or Europe? If you want use the money from fixed deposit in Europe, then buy fixed deposit in euros from Europe. If you want to use the money in India, then convert the euros and buy FD in India.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "057c8941ff4fd43be95685dd3b8b1374", "text": "I'm sorry I guess what i meant to say was, what's the downside here? Why isn't everyone doing this, what am i missing? Someone clarified that i'm completely exposed to FX risk if I bring it back. What if I am IN australia, how would I do this, short USD's?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffed5c7119959ba1d41c3d6541485cca", "text": "You could buy some call options on the USD/INR. That way if the dollar goes up, you'll make the difference, and if the dollar goes down, then you'll lose the premium you paid. I found some details on USD/INR options here Looks like the furthest out you can go is 3 months. Note they're european style options, so they can only be exercised on the expiration date (as opposed to american style, which can be exercised at any time up to the expiration date). Alternatively, you could buy into some futures contracts for the USD/INR. Those go out to 12 months. With futures if the dollar goes up, you get the difference, if the dollar goes down, you pay the difference. I'd say if you were going to do something like this, stick with the options, since the most you could lose there is the premium you put up for the option contracts. With futures, if it suddenly moved against you you could find yourself with huge losses. Note that playing in the futures and options markets are an easy way to get burned -- it's not for the faint of heart.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71973b471b6779c847e78549ccae7fb6", "text": "Rather than screwing around with foreign currencies, hop over to Germany and open an account at the first branch of Deutsche or Commerzbank you see. If the euro really does disintegrate, you want to have your money in the strongest country of the lot. Edit: and what I meant to say is that if the euro implodes, you'll end up with deutschmarks, which, unlike the new IEP, will not need to devalue. (And in the meantime, you've still got euros, so you have no FX risk.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "83d9ae6ad60870a09c431cbe4c9498a1", "text": "\"I suggest that you're really asking questions surrounding three topics: (1) what allocation hedges your risks but also allows for upside? (2) How do you time your purchases so you're not getting hammered by exchange rates? (3) How do you know if you're doing ok? Allocations Your questions concerning allocation are really \"\"what if\"\" questions, as DoubleVu points out. Only you can really answer those. I would suggest building an excel sheet and thinking through the scenarios of at least 3 what-ifs. A) What if you keep your current allocations and anything in local currency gets cut in half in value? Could you live with that? B) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and your economy recovers... so stable items grow at 5% per year, but your local investments grow 50% for the next 3 years? Could you live with that missed opportunity? C) What if you allocate more to \"\"stable economies\"\" and they grow at 5%... while SA continues a gradual slide? Remember that slow or flat growth in a stable currency is the same as higher returns in a declining currency. I would trust your own insights as a local, but I would recommend thinking more about how this plays out for your current investments. Timing You bring up concerns about \"\"timing\"\" of buying expensive foreign currencies... you can't time the market. If you knew how to do this with forex trading, you wouldn't be here :). Read up on dollar cost averaging. For most people, and most companies with international exposure, it may not beat the market in the short term, but it nets out positive in the long term. Rebalancing For you there will be two questions to ask regularly: is the allocation still correct as political and international issues play out? Have any returns or losses thrown your planned allocation out of alignment? Put your investment goals in writing, and revisit it at least once a year to evaluate whether any adjustments would be wise to make. And of course, I am not a registered financial professional, especially not in SA, so I obviously recommend taking what I say with a large dose of salt.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb4539d14a460c05bbedaebb6a7be667", "text": "Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6207d6f6b6c4c84fc02c0153c0fc89f6", "text": "I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "889b617c42eb36f14a26d3441f38a8f3", "text": "Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "898ce44c82eb87251d3e0d36b6907dda", "text": "You could go further and do a carry trade by borrowing EUR at 2% and depositing INR at 10%. All the notes above apply, and see the link there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1cfa763eb7329a1cea601b1c91dda9c7", "text": "\"In short, yes. By \"\"forward selling\"\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \"\"option\"\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \"\"no, thanks\"\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \"\"point spread\"\"; you \"\"win\"\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \"\"lose\"\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bcbd96d50a6f159f56b3bc04413bca94", "text": "\"We're in agreement, I just want retail investors to understand that in most of these types of discussions, the unspoken reality is the retail sector trading the market is over. This includes the mutual funds you mentioned, and even most index funds (most are so narrowly focused they lose their relevance for the retail investor). In the retail investment markets I'm familiar with, there are market makers of some sort or another for specified ranges. I'm perfectly fine with no market makers; but retail investors should be told the naked truth as well, and not sold a bunch of come-ons. What upsets me is seeing that just as computers really start to make an orderly market possible (you are right, the classic NYSE specialist structure was outrageously corrupt), regulators turned a blind eye to implementing better controls for retail investors. The financial services industry has to come to terms whether they want AUM from retail or not, and having heard messaging much like yours from other professionals, I've concluded that the industry does not want the constraints with accepting those funds, but neither do they want to disabuse retail investors of how tilted the game is against them. Luring them in with deceptively suggestive marketing and then taking money from those naturally ill-prepared for the rigors of the setting is like beating up the Downs' Syndrome kid on the short bus and boasting about it back on the campus about how clever and strong one is. If there was as stringent truth in marketing in financial services as cigarettes, like \"\"this service makes their profit by encouraging the churning of trades\"\", there would be a lot of kvetching from so-called \"\"pros\"\" as well. If all retail financial services were described like \"\"dead cold cow meat\"\" describes \"\"steak\"\", a lot of retail investors would be better off. As it stands today, you'd have to squint mighty hard to see the faintly-inscribed \"\"caveat emptor\"\" on financial services offerings to the retail sector. Note that depending upon the market setting, the definition of retail differs. I'm surprised the herd hasn't been spooked more by the MF Global disaster, for example, and yet there are some surprisingly large accounts detrimentally affected by that incident, which in a conventional equities setting would be considered \"\"pros\"\".\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
db2840834d82bcf6aec899932368298b	Why do many British companies offer a scrip dividend option in lieu of cash?	[ { "docid": "28417c330fec9be359de5236701d740d", "text": "There are quite a few reasons that a company may choose to pay dividends rather than hold cash [increasing the share value]. Of couse there are equally other set of reasons why a company may not want to give dividends and hold on to cash. Related question here Please explain the relationship between dividend amount, stock price, and option value?", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "4fd5b5ed5fb4dd0fcbd1af43c9b6ee97", "text": "Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8251000cc2c3e8b95abfb04205e6fcc7", "text": "\"The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere. They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a \"\"company\"\". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued. A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future. Berkshire Hathaway does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example. But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up. Would it be worth anything? Of course it would. It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this \"\"promise to pay\"\" is much like a non-dividend paying stock. Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up. It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "abb4cdd47e8ddd5e34572e51cc065730", "text": "Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc91ea4c757c7222136a6d2fab185128", "text": "Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend. The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes. Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend. Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f3efe3ae43a81233cc493fe7893ce776", "text": "My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c0db525e29b179ccc16e47e332b7f84", "text": "Numerous studies have actually shown that companies who pay dividends are much more reckless financially with returning capital to shareholders because they want to save face and maintain/grow the dividend. Buybacks are much more flexible and probably lead to better capital allocation decisions, in my opinion.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "187da176de28134ca36a1b9726d3e13a", "text": "The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "48c4c09393444db71c1e41e3da89a24d", "text": "\"A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to? I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a \"\"call\"\" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares. So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has. I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees? Each one of those is equivalent to a single share. They just aren't called \"\"call options\"\". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place. Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock. They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons. (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised. In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised. Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created. Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time. As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments. This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a93bf6e73cac1f5c7e8a250f6a3dae72", "text": "Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program. What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it). The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "edc7ef593efc8e63c3943b0bccda0122", "text": "Instead of giving part of their profits back as dividends, management puts it back into the company so the company can grow and produce higher profits. When these companies do well, there is high demand for them as in the long term higher profits equates to a higher share price. So if a company invests in itself to grow its profits higher and higher, one of the main reasons investors will buy the shares, is in the expectation of future capital gains. In fact just because a company pays a dividend, would you still buy it if the share price kept decreasing year after year? Lets put it this way: Company A makes record profits year after year, continually keeps beating market expectations, its share price keeps going up, but it pays no dividend instead reinvests its profits to continually grow the business. Company B pays a dividend instead of reinvesting to grow the business, it has been surprising the market on the downside for a few years now, it has had some profit warnings lately and its share price has consistently been dropping for over a year. Which company would you be interested in buying out of the two? I know I would be interested in buying Company A, and I would definitely stay away from Company B. Company A may or may not pay dividends in the future, but if Company B continues on this path it will soon run out of money to pay dividends. Most market gains are made through capital gains rather than dividends, and most people invest in the hope the shares they buy go up in price over time. Dividends can be one attractant to investors but they are not the only one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fa8e0c64174269d2bd8ace9c51271d15", "text": "The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b6cfd7b5ea58d48dc171d9ede3d46f0", "text": "Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ff4b83c8e5627b710d84964fc9b0a85", "text": "\"This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think \"\"hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise.\"\" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, \"\"I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense.\"\" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose.\"", "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": "4275283d6083a46b9904a9ea71360cbc", "text": "Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units. So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares. The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash. An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend. However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares. The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend. (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers. It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6dec3fca180a4e6ab9cd0400c4faaf8f	Are quarterly earnings released first via a press release on the investor website, via conference call, or does it vary by company?	[ { "docid": "2b91ea9ba00641d019c71d2986da2f19", "text": "the financial information is generally filed via SEDAR (Canada) or SEC (US) before the conference call with the investment community. This can take before either before the market opens or after the market closes. The information is generally distribute to the various newswire service and company website at the same time the filing is made with SEDAR/SEC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5f5d0b22cf78bf5aa71207de175bdba3", "text": "Companies typically release their earnings before the market opens, and then later host an analyst/investor conference call to discuss the results. Here's a link to an interesting article abstract on the subject: Disclosure Rules For Earnings Releases And Calls \| Bowne Digest. Excerpt: In the aftermath of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC changed regulations to bring quarterly earnings announcements in line with the generally heightened sensitivity to adequate disclosure. New regulations required that issuers file or furnish their earnings press releases on Form 8-K and conduct any related oral presentations promptly thereafter, to avoid a second 8-K. [...] Sample from a news release by The Coca Cola Company: ATLANTA, September 30, 2009 - The Coca-Cola Company will release third quarter and year-to-date 2009 financial results on Tuesday, October 20, before the stock market opens. The Company will host an investor conference call at 9:30 a.m. ( EDT ), on October 20. [...] Sample from a news release by Apple, Inc.: CUPERTINO, California—January 21, 2009—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2009 first quarter ended December 27, 2008. The Company posted record revenue of [...] Apple will provide live streaming of its Q1 2009 financial results conference call utilizing QuickTime®, Apple’s standards-based technology for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will begin at [...]", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae140b6307f4e621e74d4a2184730378", "text": "Companies release their earnings reports over news agencies like Reuters, Dow Jones and Bloomberg before putting them on their website (which usually occurs a few minutes after the official dissemination of the report). This is because they have to make sure that all investors get the news at the same time (which is kind of guaranteed when official news channels are used). The conference call is usually a few hours after the earnings report release to discuss the results with analysts and investors.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f0681a6e39199fc97f9881b1bd449ca6", "text": "In the U.S., publicly traded companies are under the rules of Regulation Fair Disclosure, which says that a company must release information to all investors at the same time. The company website and social media both count as fair disclosure, because every investor has access to those outlets, but a press release newswire service could also be the first outlet. (What is forbidden by this regulation is the practice of releasing news first to the brokers, who could inform certain customers of the news early.) I think that the first outlet for press releases could be different for each company, depending on the internal procedures of the company. Some would update their website first, and others would wait to update the site until the press release hits the newswire first.", "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": "138081ec8dc672510864b024303858ca", "text": "Whilst it is true that they do not have a conference call every time a rating is produced, the parameters of a natural oligopoly do indicate that there are negative effects of deviating too much from the other members of an oligopoly. There are instances of rating agencies (Moody's) giving lower ratings to punish the issuer for going elsewhere (Re Hannover), but usually a slightly lower rating may be acceptable and is usually corrected to be in line with the competitor shortly afterwards. The power, arguably, is with the issuer in this sense because they can take their business to the 3rd member (Fitch) if the rating is too low from one of the Big Two. The preservation of the 'Big Two', for so long, is arguably testament to the S&P and Moody's understanding of these parameters If the answer is not micromanaging, what do you think it is out of interest?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72f8406a31741459ff9869a0c5d52123", "text": "\"Does your job give you access to \"\"confidential information\"\", such that you can only buy or sell shares in the company during certain windows? Employees with access to company financial data, resource planning databases, or customer databases are often only allowed to trade in company securities (or derivatives thereof) during certain \"\"windows\"\" a few days after the company releases its quarterly earnings reports. Even those windows can be cancelled if a major event is about to be announced. These windows are designed to prevent the appearance of insider trading, which is a serious crime in the United States. Is there a minimum time that you would need to hold the stock, before you are allowed to sell it? Do you have confidence that the stock would retain most of its value, long enough that your profits are long-term capital gains instead of short-term capital gains? What happens to your stock if you lose your job, retire, or go to another company? Does your company's stock price seem to be inflated by any of these factors: If any of these nine warning flags are the case, I would think carefully before investing. If I had a basic emergency fund set aside and none of the nine warning flags are present, or if I had a solid emergency fund and the company seemed likely to continue to justify its stock price for several years, I would seriously consider taking full advantage of the stock purchase plan. I would not invest more money than I could afford to lose. At first, I would cash out my profits quickly (either as quickly as allowed, or as quickly as lets me minimize my capital gains taxes). I would reinvest in more shares, until I could afford to buy as many shares as the company would allow me to buy at the discount. In the long-run, I would avoid having more than one-third of my net worth in any single investment. (E.g., company stock, home equity, bonds in general, et cetera.)\"", "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": "5680b160ef451d1256d0d99b6011ba1a", "text": "Look at the how the income statement is built. The stock price is nowhere on it. The net income is based on the revenue (money coming in) and expenses (money going out). Most companies do not issue stock all that often. The price you see quoted is third parties selling the stock to each other.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01dc0a97e9737837fc1a151aacdca3fe", "text": "If the period is consistent for company X, but occurs in a different month as Company Y, it might be linked to the release of their annual report, or the payment of their annual dividend. Companies don't have to end their fiscal year near the end of the Calendar year, therefore these end of year events could occur in any month. The annual report could cause investors to react to the hard numbers of the report compared to what wall street experts have been predicting. The payment of an annual dividend will also cause a direct drop in the price of the stock when the payment is made. There will also be some movement in prices as the payment date approaches.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7a1af1f518ca2fda333f2639837459d9", "text": "PE ratio is the current share price divided by the prior 4 quarters earnings per share. Any stock quote site will report it. You can also compute it yourself. All you need is an income statement and a current stock quote.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "332205f27c25ae4259976051970c26c8", "text": "\"Filter by the filings when you look at the search results. The 10-K will include the annual report, which included fiscal year-end financial statements. Quarterly reports and statements are in the 10-Q filing. The filing will include a LOT of other information, but there should be a section called \"\"Financial Statements\"\" or something similar that will include all pertinent financials statements. You can also find \"\"normalized\"\" balance sheets and income statements on the \"\"finance\"\" pages of the main web search sites (Google, Yahoo, MSN) and other sites that provide stock quotes. If you're looking to do basic comparisons versus in-depth statement analysis those may be sufficient for you.\"", "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": "" }, { "docid": "1215709f7759651dfa4fa316b87bc917", "text": "The websites of the most publicly traded companies publish their quarterly and annual financials. Check the investor relations sections out at the ones you want to look at.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2f06e5113e47302d55798c67dc6474c7", "text": "I would look on http://seekingalpha.com/currents/earnings. You can also get copies of the conference calls for each company you are looking at. What you referred to is the conference call. The people who usually ask questions are professional analysts. I would recommend getting the transcript as it is easier to highlight and keep records of. I hope that helps", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ffcfbbbf77acfc7817be2bc3cc848775", "text": "\"EPS is often earnings/diluted shares. That is counting shares as if all convertible securities (employee stock options for example) were converted. Looking at page 3 of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release we find both basic ($1.13) and diluted EPS ($1.11). Dividends are not paid on diluted shares, but only actual shares. If we pull put this chart @ Yahoo finance, and hovering our mouse over the blue diamond with a \"\"D\"\", we find that Pfizer paid dividends of $0.28, $0.28, $0.28, $0.30 in 2015. Or $1.14 per share. Very close to the $1.13, non-diluted EPS. A wrinkle is that one can think of the dividend payment as being from last quarter, so the first one in 2015 is from 2014. Leaving us with $0.28, $0.28, $0.30, and unknown. Returning to page three of Q4 2015 Reissued Earnings Press Release, Pfizer last $0.03 per share. So they paid more in dividends that quarter than they made. And from the other view, the $0.30 cents they paid came from the prior quarter, then if they pay Q1 2016 from Q4 2015, then they are paying more in that view also.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9de080444de75c710b8e60527623c7", "text": "\"I'm trying to understand how an ETF manager optimized it's own revenue. Here's an example that I'm trying to figure out. ETF firm has an agreement with GS for blocks of IBM. They have agreed on daily VWAP + 1% for execution price. Further, there is a commission schedule for 5 mils with GS. Come month end, ETF firm has to do a monthly rebalance. As such must buy 100,000 shares at IBM which goes for about $100 The commission for the trade is 100,000 * 5 mils = $500 in commission for that trade. I assume all of this is covered in the expense ratio. Such that if VWAP for the day was 100, then each share got executed to the ETF at 101 (VWAP+ %1) + .0005 (5 mils per share) = for a resultant 101.0005 cost basis The ETF then turns around and takes out (let's say) 1% as the expense ratio ($1.01005 per share) I think everything so far is pretty straight forward. Let me know if I missed something to this point. Now, this is what I'm trying to get my head around. ETF firm has a revenue sharing agreement as well as other \"\"relations\"\" with GS. One of which is 50% back on commissions as soft dollars. On top of that GS has a program where if you do a set amount of \"\"VWAP +\"\" trades you are eligible for their corporate well-being programs and other \"\"sponsorship\"\" of ETF's interests including helping to pay for marketing, rent, computers, etc. Does that happen? Do these disclosures exist somewhere?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdc2ab0a1a171b76514f8a99687db810", "text": "I don't see how allowing usage of your vehicle is less support than giving money to buy their own vehicle. If that's the only vehicle your mother has - then you're supporting her. Quantifying that support may be difficult though, but if you are providing her all of her needs - it doesn't matter. If she does have income of her own, I do not think that you can put the actual amount you're paying as part of the calculation towards the 50% rule since she would otherwise have bought a much cheaper car. But if you pass the 50% threshold even without the car payments - then you're fine either way.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
7a3c14e306a2e1ac64dd3c671bb418c9	Does the “Free Ride” rule always apply to your entire collection of shares in a particular stock?	[ { "docid": "0cbd3fa0278d381e5d7433908775a40a", "text": "Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c843dc9c5c342b9205e36ba2aa3344f", "text": "\"You should check with your broker for details, but you can generally specify which \"\"lot\"\" you are selling. where I've seen it, that's done by concurrently sending a \"\"letter of instruction\"\" documenting your choice of lot concurrent with the sale, but different brokers may handle this differently. I would think this should work for the case that you describe. (In addition, the default rule used by your broker is \"\"probably\"\" first-in-first-out, which will do what you want here.) Note that this may come into play even in a margin account to the extent that you might want to specify a lot in order to obtain (or set yourself up for later benefit of) favorable tax treatment under the long-term capital gains rules\"", "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": "0d0fb6a1a06313f56e37e7e8b8c1b1f3", "text": "http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51ad976b1e5d211f36c818bfef24e2a1", "text": "Is there any precedent for companies trading on their own insider information for the benefit of stockholders? Said another way, if a company were to enter a new market where they were very confident of their ability to steamroll a public competitor, could they use a wholly-owned special-purpose investment vehicle to short that competitor in order to juice the benefit of that move?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce8d5627024191690537789aedb3f34f", "text": "You are still selling one investment and buying another - the fact that they are managed by the same company should be irrelevant. So yes, it would get the same tax treatment as if they were managed by different companies.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "918130a1c8eeb5200beae8679af18034", "text": "Reading the plan documentation, yes, that is what it means. Each purchase by bank debit, whether one-time or automatic, costs $2 plus $0.06 per share; so if you invested $50, you would get slightly less than $48 in stock as a result (depending on the per-share price). Schedule of Fees Purchases – A one-time $15.00 enrollment fee to establish a new account for a non-shareholder will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Dividend reinvestment: The Hershey Company pays the transaction fee and per share* fee on your behalf. – Each optional cash purchase by one-time online bank debit will entail a transaction fee of $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – Each optional cash purchase by check will entail a transaction fee of $5.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. – If funds are automatically deducted from your checking or savings account, the transaction fee is $2.00 plus $0.06 per share* purchased. Funds will be withdrawn on the 10th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 10th is not a business day. – Fees will be deducted from the purchase amount. – Returned check and rejected ACH debit fee is $35.00.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "88f2601280f52c488c4745adbf7d599a", "text": "I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it would be considered a free ride. The idea of a free ride is that you are engaging in a transaction when you do not actually have the money available to cover it, since the broker is technically giving you a 3 day loan whenever you purchase your stock (3 day rule to settle.) However, if you are using a margin account, and you have enough credit available, then you are not actually using unsettled assets, but rather an additional line of credit which was granted to you. You would just need to make sure that your total transactions are less than your purchasing power. That's my take on it anyway. I hope that helps, and hopefully someone can confirm or reject what I have said.", "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": "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": "ef9f5769e5d4a0b6e6fd4db33220fe98", "text": "Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d18a0ebdd505f1bbcec3d7ff88ceaf59", "text": "\"No, assuming by \"\"public company\"\" you mean a corporation. The shareholder's individual liability is limited to their investment. Your shares can go to zero value, but that's the limit. EDIT In regard to the follow-up question in the comments: \"\"Are all companies in the stock market corporations?\"\" the answer is definitely \"\"no.\"\" I cannot say much about other countries, but the US markets have some entities which are known as \"\"master limited partnerships.\"\" These trade shares on the market by the usual rules, but if you buy you become a partner in the company rather than a shareholder. You still have limited liability in this case, but there will be differences, for example, in how you're are taxed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f29b55b33e9105340e11bfb78539e9", "text": "You also may want to consider how this interacts with the stepped up basis of estates. If you never sell the stock and it passes to your heirs with your estate, under current tax law the basis will increase from the purchase price to the market price at the time of transfer. In a comment, you proposed: Thinking more deeply though, I am a little skeptical that it's a free lunch: Say I buy stock A (a computer manufacturer) at $100 which I intend to hold long term. It ends up falling to $80 and the robo-advisor sells it for tax loss harvesting, buying stock B (a similar computer manufacturer) as a replacement. So I benefit from realizing those losses. HOWEVER, say both stocks then rise by 50% over 3 years. At this point, selling B gives me more capital gains tax than if I had held A through the losses, since A's rise from 80 back to 100 would have been free for me since I purchased at 100. And then later thought Although thinking even more (sorry, thinking out loud here), I guess I still come out ahead on taxes since I was able to deduct the $20 loss on A against ordinary income, and while I pay extra capital gains on B, that's a lower tax rate. So the free lunch is $20[number of shares]([my tax bracket] - [capital gains rates]) That's true. And in addition to that, if you never sell B, which continues to rise to $200 (was last at $120 after a 50% increase from $80), the basis steps up to $200 on transfer to your heirs. Of course, your estate may have to pay a 40% tax on the $200 before transferring the shares to your heirs. So this isn't exactly a free lunch either. But you have to pay that 40% tax regardless of the form in which the money is held. Cash, real estate, stocks, whatever. Whether you have a large or small capital gain on the stock is irrelevant to the estate tax. This type of planning may not matter to you personally, but it is another aspect of what wealth management can impact.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9e767c26bb5156cea063ee0911642690", "text": "\"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d80b33775084481e3cce09445f2b3a83", "text": "I don't think that you will be able to find a list of every owner for a given stock. There are probably very few people who would know this. One source would be whoever sends out the shareholder meeting mailers. I suspect that the company itself would know this, the exchange to a lesser extent, and possibly the brokerage houses to a even lesser extent. Consider these resources:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2c9291b466f20b6130ad21913668ec2", "text": "Each S-corp is bound by its own plan documents, which typically do not limit or dictate where the investments are held. Your brokerage account has no tie to the company from which the funds come, however, you are still subject to maximum SIMPLE contribution rules and cannot exceed the $12,500 (if under age 50) COMBINED contribution for any and all companies. Be careful about co-mingling from both companies as there are penalties for early withdrawals made within 2-years of participating in the plan. If you started them both at the same time it's not an issue.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
4a9c9f02af016f6e7c3a8fef921773e0	Why does BlackRock's XIN page show XIN as having only 1 holding?	[ { "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": "1597f381f3d33f1ad6e20cf3ccaa0fea", "text": "\"On BlackRock's XIN page under Key Facts it says the number of holdings as 1. Looking at the top 10 holdings shows EFA as the number 1 holding with a 101% weighting. XIN is \"\"iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)\"\", so it takes the underlying component and hedges it to CAD. The underlying component is an ETF itself, EFA, so they only need to hold that one component (since that is the MSCI EAFE Index ETF). How is it possible to hold over 100%? Take a look at the full list of holdings. While EFA is the only underlying security (e.g. ETF, Stock, Bond, et.c), the remaining holdings (looks to be 133 remaining holdings) are cash positions. Some of those positions are negative for hedge purposes. Because of this, the total value of the portfolio is less than the position of EFA itself (since total value is EFA plus a bunch of negative entries); because the total value is less than EFA itself, EFA has a > 100% weighting.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a2e422a6b52ecc1c213a24bc67a53bfe", "text": "Set a good till cancel GTC order, and partial fills will just roll over to the market session if it doesn't fill completely during the first market session It is a very low probability that each share will only be taken one at a time. It isn't a low probability that it will fill in two or three orders, but this is all a factor of how liquid the stocks you bought are. Also your limit order price is also a factor in this", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08f30ae13d4446f5989046359125f7c2", "text": "One interpretation of the above is that Pound (alongside US Dollar, Euro and other major curriencies), which forms the Forex basket of countries has dropped to less than 10% weightage in case of China's Forex holding. Now the question is where did this money go, this money probably have gone into Forex market to buy Yuan against Pound/Dollar etc. to bolster or strengthen Yuan. The currency reserve management is the 'wealth' management part and the 'currency' management part is what is known as 'central bank intervention' to stabilize the currency.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db86b523b9d24cee076895ff66045269", "text": "\"You are probably right I honestly don't know, my main issue with this article is the misleading nature. IMO it's as though the author has seen snippets of information and then formed his entire opinion on it. I'm not convinced he fully understands \"\"best execution\"\" or how exchanges work. Statements such as: \"\"IEX has delivered on its promise of better execution\"\" what is he basing this on? He makes statements but doesn't follow it up with facts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b42e15f40f75d337c1a93b03c9c664cb", "text": "\"There are a few things you are missing here. These appear to be penny stocks or subpenny stocks. Buying these are easy.... selling is a total different ball game. Buying commissions are low and selling commissions are outrageous. Another thing you are missing in this order is... some trading platform may assume the \"\"AON\"\" sale. That is All Or None. There was an offer of 10k shares @ .63. The buyer only wanted 10k what was the broker to do with the other 20k? Did you inform the broker that partial sales where acceptable? You may want to contact your broker and explain this to them. The ALL OR NONE order has made plenty of investor a little unhappy, which seems to be your new learning experience for the day. Sorry, school of hard knocks is not always fun.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9726e74175e398790e35f056a69a16cd", "text": "To clarify something: FB did not inflate their share price, Morgan Stanley did. Every company on the IPO wants a billion dollars a share, but thats not possible so they take what the market will give them, FB played their cards right. MS didn't disclose that their analysts (not auditors) changed their minds. For fun stuff: read up on ETF arbitrage with HFT, this kinda stuff happens everyday on a micro scale.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "22a58bb6f1803e7765a19450e6a9a536", "text": "\"Well the People's Trust's IPO prospectus is now (2017-09-08) available for all to read (or there's a smaller \"\"information leaflet\"\"). (May need some disclaimers to be clicked to get access). Both have a \"\"highlights\"\" bullet-point list: Coverage here has a comment thread with some responses by the founder attempting to answer the obvious objection that there's other multi-manager trusts on a discount (e.g Alliance Trust on ~ -5.5%), so why would you buy this one on a (very small) premium? (Update: There's also another recent analysis here.) Personally, I'm thinking the answer to the original question \"\"How is The People's Trust not just another Investment Trust?\"\" is pretty much: \"\"it's just another Investment Trust\"\" (albeit one with its own particular quirks and goals). But good luck to them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "782f3f1ca247416fe3b29c6d7658e1ee", "text": "\"Hmm, this site says If you use Quicken, you enter a new transaction of type \"\"Corporate Acquisition (stock for stock).\"\" You put investor shares as the \"\"Company acquired\"\", Admiral shares as the \"\"Acquiring company\"\", and the conversion ratio 0.7997754 as the \"\"New shares issued per held share\"\" number. Seems crazy, but maybe that's the way. Edit: This sucks. In the comments, you can see that people have to manually correct the share price for every transaction because of rounding problems.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d56cfae504a707bd1c0f2c20e57adc0", "text": "\"Do you think that your bank has a separate vault for just your money? Of course not. The bank just has one big pot of money that everything gets dumped into. They know exactly how much money each person is supposed to have. The problem is when they add up all the money in the vault... well lets just say a lot of it is missing. That's why they are supposed to have two vaults, one with the customer's money and one with the investor's money. But since all the account tracking is done internally it becomes real easy to \"\"borrow\"\" from one vault to fund the other. Vault: MF Global's at another bank\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b6a62a2fce4ea7b69f9998722e5496b0", "text": "\"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f98342a46aadd4f3c7192e8b9415206c", "text": "For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "297f5c1fde7a5eb34c626fd519b68de3", "text": "Generally, when I run across this kind of situation, I look for the Investor Relations section of the corporate website for a 'Stock Information' (or similar) tab or link. This usually contains information explaining the different shares classes, how they relate (if at all), voting and/or dividend rights, and taxation differences for the different classes. However, I have trouble finding such a page on a central BYD corporate investor relations page. I did find this page detailing the HK1211 shares: http://www.byd.com/investor/base_information.html. I don't know what or why, but something tells me this is an older page. Searching on, I also found this page which looks newer and clarifies that the difference you are seeing is between 'A' and 'H' shares. http://www.byd.cn/BYDEnglish/basic/article.jsp?articleId=1524676. (I'm guessing but I'd think somewhere in the announcements on this byd.cn site, you may find more details of any structural differences between share classes -- I just didn't want to page through them all.)", "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": "90371e84d698dee3fc8da1acc03d7715", "text": "Lots of bloomberg vids posted on dailymotion.com have interviews with Blackrock analysts. Looked Blackrock up in wiki. Amazing size: The company acquired Barclays Global Investors in December 2009, solidifying its position as the largest investment manager in the world.[3] As of June 2011, *the company has over $3.65 trillion in assets under management.*", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6cf13ea4d096712e382bab3746657bf", "text": "\"BestInvest is a UK site looking at that URL, base on the \"\"co.uk\"\" ending. Yahoo! Finance that you use is a US-based site unless you add something else to the URL. UK & Ireland Yahoo! Finance is different from where you were as there is something to be said for where are you looking. If I was looking for a quarter dollar there are Canadian and American coins that meet this so there is something to be said for a higher level of categorization being done. \"\"EUN.L\"\" would likely denote the \"\"London\"\" exchange as tickers are exchange-specific you do realize, right?\"", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
7dc34c193f6e06f22acefe7aa156a7d0	Invest all at once after maxing out Roth IRA - or each time I contribute?	[ { "docid": "7eda2545274259e191ce240b604b675e", "text": "This depends on the terms and conditions of your IRA account, and those of the investments you have chosen. In general, you are better off investing as quickly as is feasible given those terms. Money in your cash account doesn't earn much of a return, so the quicker you get money into something earning a return, the better. However, pay attention to the fees and costs associated with investing. If there is a per-transaction fee, you may want to consolidate, as it may be more efficient to do so - after all, if you contribute $500 at a shot, and it costs you $5 to make a trade, you're paying 1% off the top to make that trade if you make 11 of them, versus 0.1% to make 1, so the question is do you earn that 1% back over the course of the six months? That will depend on what you are investing in. More than likely you're going to earn more than 1% over the course of the six months, so it's probably worth investing it in pieces still in that situation, but if the transaction cost is higher, or the time differential lower, you may have a less clear-cut answer. I invest at Vanguard in their funds and have no transaction fees, so I have a more obvious answer (invest as soon as possible). You also need to consider whether you have minimums to pay attention to - maybe your investment is something you can only buy whole shares of, for example, or you might have a much higher fee if you make small transactions. In that case, you should wait until you have the minimum to make that transaction if the fee is more than the return you'll get. So the answer is - make the transactions as early as you can, subject to considering the fees you will pay for making them.", "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": "ec29e9f3446d7fbc121a80fbf555f43b", "text": "\"You could put in in a Money Market Fund. These are designed to always be $1 per share, and not lose money. Of course, it still, very rarely, happens and is called \"\"breaking the buck\"\" when they do. Sounds like the high yield savings is the way to go. The rates will be the same as what you can get from a Money Market Fund, but you also have the added advantage that the account is FDIC insured. BTW, using a Roth as an emergency fund is a terrible idea. It is true that, since you already paid taxes on your contributions, you can withdraw those contributions without incurring penalties. However, you have to file paperwork to do it, and since it's not common, the IRA custodian is likely to screw it up. Plus, you have to keep track of what were contributions, and what was investment returns, to not run afoul of the penalties. And it will take time to do it, which you may not have in an emergency. Considering you're only looking at getting 1% interest anyway, there's no reason to use a Roth account as an emergency fund. You can set those same automatic deposits into a savings account.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdaed5ab7a58077ef786ce73f812b19e", "text": "\"If you have maxed out your IRA contribution for 2017 already (and it all went into your Roth IRA), then, until the 2017 Tax Day in April 2018, you can remove any part of this contribution (and the earnings therefrom) from your Roth IRA without any tax consequences or penalties. If you discover in early 2018 that you are not eligible (or only partially eligible) to contribute to a Roth IRA, then of course you must remove all (or part) of your 2017 contributions (and the earnings therefrom) from your Roth IRA by the 2017 Tax Day in April 2018. Indeed, if you have filed for an extension of time to submit your 2017 tax return, then you have until the extended due date to make the withdrawal. As NathanL's answer points out, for 2017, you and withdraw and re-contribute \"\"as many times as you like\"\" though if you push this idea to excess with the same IRA custodian, the custodian may start charging fees. Note that IRS Publication 590b says in the Roth IRA section, Withdrawals of contributions by due date. If you withdraw contributions (including any net earnings on the contributions) by the due date of your return for the year in which you made the contribution, the contributions are treated as if you never made them. If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw the contributions and earnings by the extended due date. The withdrawal of contributions is tax free, but you must include the earnings on the contributions in income for the year in which you made the contributions. Now, if in the middle of all these transactions, you need to take a distribution from your Roth IRA during 2017 (say because you have a cash flow problem), then it makes a lot of sense to first withdraw all your 2017 contributions and the earnings therefrom. If more money is needed, than you can take a distribution from your Roth IRA. What the distribution consists of is described in great detail in Publication 590b and you might have to pay a tax penalty for a premature distribution depending on how much the distribution is. (The first dollars coming are assumed to be previous contributions in the order in which you made them and these are tax-free and penalty-free; after that the rollover and conversion amounts start to come out and are penalized if they have not spent 5 years in the IRA etc) But you can put the money back into your Roth IRA within 60 days and avoid penalties. Important Notes regarding rollover transactions:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5b7c6c045d2c03f178cd96160cd32d98", "text": "For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "046ecaa7a1cf3caaa077dc7b109211f5", "text": "Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8961afa6a6500b768f5abbbbb4d0e6ea", "text": "This is a great idea and I can't think of any downside. The best part about it is in the future when you have built up your emergency fund beyond the maximum contributions to the Roth IRA, you can then move your Roth funds into a higher yielding investment. I might take it a step further. In addition to this, try to get a line of credit from your bank (with no annual fee). In case of emergency, you can decide if you want to take the money from your Roth or borrow from the line and pay some interest temporarily. Depending on the situation it may actually make sense to pay a little bit of interest and leave the money in the Roth, since over the long run the future earnings of that money could easily make you more than the interest you'll pay for (let's hope) a short amount of time. To really hit home why your idea is fantastic:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "df2dc17c4dd2894c6421712709118270", "text": "My thoughts are your retirement investing priorities should be as follows: So in your case I would not put any money into your 401k until you have maxed out your Roth IRA.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "780c6434ce04ec3703731bc11fc10e7d", "text": "I'm staring at this chart and asking myself, How long a period is enough to have an average I'd be happy with regardless of the direction the market goes? 3 years? 4 years? Clearly, a lump sum investment risks a 2000 buy at 1500. Not good. Honestly, I love the question, and find it interesting, but there's likely no exact answer, just some back and forth analysis. You're investing about $40K/yr anyway. I'd suggest a 4 year timeframe is a good time to invest the new money as well. Other folk want to offer opinions? Edit - with the OP's additional info, he expects these bonuses to continue, my updated advice is to DCA quarterly if going into assets with a transaction fee or monthly if into a no-fee fund, over just a one year period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "04fc25149b5028e4a34d26e562cedb73", "text": "\"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6a1ba66db8b8bca2fab8a90c59ff62a", "text": "\"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \"\"post-tax\"\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \"\"pre-tax\"\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "53b1bf399946e6e878985ef0cf25bedb", "text": "\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d1bf3a9f7853133fac81955ed45b8c", "text": "I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "568cdc8bc1ffceb1b886706a7fa2092e", "text": "The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "17aa52b5d84e51eb74bf9cd36bc283fa", "text": "Lets assume you put the max of 5000 per year in a Roth IRA. You have your home and all other debt paid off, and your investment earns 10%, a few points below the market average. You will have $822,470 at 65, 1005K at 67 that you can draw on tax free. It is a fairly tidy sum and should keep you from working as the greeter in WalMart. This kind of return should be expected from most mutual funds, and you could invest some time in reading about how to pick good returning funds. An index fund, which shadows a market index, should have that kind of return. And yes that is 10% per year. In investing it is about momentum. I too write software for a living, and would suggest you should be able to contribute about double that amount and still be comfortable. That would set you up for a pretty comfortable post-work life style. You understand the value of building passive income. Traditionally that is accomplished through dividends of reliable companies, but are now accomplished a variety of ways. Keep in mind the way you are asking this question opens you to many scams.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "595e3ccfcbbed7dd537dd75ca449553d", "text": "Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee9ec3cf0e095eca0867b554e25a864e", "text": "\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dbaeff467fc8e0a2a0be032faa06709f	Married Couple - Open investment account Separate or Joined?	[ { "docid": "6f1757e12b8309837d76e792e3845e77", "text": "\"I don't believe it makes a difference at the federal level -- if you file taxes jointly, gains, losses, and dividends appear on the joint tax account. If you file separately, I assume the tax implications only appear on the owner's tax return. Then the benefits might outweigh the costs, but only if you correctly predict market behavior and the behavior of your positions. For example, lets say you lose 30k in the market in one year, and your spouse makes 30k. If you're filing jointly, the loss washes out the gain, and you have no net taxes on the investment. If you're filing separately, you can claim 3k in loss (the remaining 27k in loss is banked to future tax years), but your spouse pays taxes on 30k in gain. Where things get more interesting is at the state level. I live in a \"\"community property state,\"\" where it doesn't matter whether you have separate accounts or not. If I use \"\"community money\"\" to purchase a stock and make a million bucks, that million bucks is shared by the two of us, whether the account is in my name our in our name. income during the marriage is considered community property. However property you bring into the marriage is not. And inheritances are not community property -- until co-mingled. Not sure how it works in other states. I grew up in what's called an \"\"equitable property state.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "897b8449942ba103ae50e8cf868afa70", "text": "\"I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement. In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time. When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition. While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property. Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies. If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer. Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this. If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should. Emma can rent from Clayton. That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero. If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date. If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway. Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat. Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost. Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market. In that case, both parties lose. So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly. There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play \"\"house\"\" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c339c34a9bac65524b033ec28d1827c2", "text": "It should be in the name(s) of whomever puts money in the account. When filing your taxes there will be a question or space to mark the percentage of income in each others name. If you're just looking for small amounts of income splitting, then it's legal for the higher earning spouse to pay household expenses and then the lower earning spouse can save all or some of his/her income. Whether or not to have 2 accounts or not has more to do with estate planning and minimizing account fees if applicable. It can also help in a small way for asset allocation if that's based on family assets and also, minimizing commissions.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd7b2260cf22b2b28ded192e30046001", "text": "\"I can only share with you my happened with my wife and I. First, and foremost, if you think you need to protect your assets for some reason then do so. Be open and honest about it. If we get a divorce, X stays with me, and Y stays with you. This seems silly, even when your doing it, but it's important. You can speak with a lawyer about this stuff as you need to, but get it in writing. Now I know this seems like planning for failure, but if you feel that foo is important to you, and you want to retain ownership of foo no mater what, then you have to do this step. It also works both ways. You can use, with some limitations, this to insulate your new family unit from your personal risks. For example, my business is mine. If we break up it stays mine. The income is shared, but the business is mine. This creates a barrier that if someone from 10 years ago sues my business, then my wife is protected from that. Keep in mind, different countries different rules. Next, and this is my advise. Give up on \"\"his and hers\"\" everything. It's just \"\"ours\"\". Together you make 5400€ decide how to spend 5400€ together. Pick your goals together. The pot is 5400€. End of line. It doesn't matter how much from one person or how much from another (unless your talking about mitigating losses from sick days or injuries or leave etc.). All that matters is that you make 5400€. Start your budgeting there. Next setup an equal allowance. That is money, set aside for non-sense reasons. I like to buy video games, my wife likes to buy books. This is not for vacation, or stuff together, but just little, tiny stuff you can do for your self, without asking \"\"permission\"\". The number should be small, and equal. Maybe 50€. Finally setup a budget. House Stuff 200€, Car stuff 400€. etc. etc. then it doesn't matter who bought the house stuff. You only have to coordinate so that you don't both buy house stuff. After some time (took us around 6 months) you will find out how this works and you can add on some rules. For example, I don't go to Best Buy alone. I will spend too much on \"\"house stuff\"\". My wife doesn't like to make the budget, so I handle that, then we go over it. Things like that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1803daa7f5119c4709425e1429bd533", "text": "\"My wife and I use to file \"\"married file separately\"\". I consulted a tax accountant and it does not matter who's name the accounts are under. The interest from the accounts can be counted as income on either person's tax return regardless of whose name is on the account. You can even split the interest income between the returns if that is advantageous. This is true for any income earned between the two of you. It use to be a big hassle to file this way even using the software programs. The programs would not attempt to allocate the income between the tax returns in order to minimize my tax liability. I had to do this manually. Most of the loopholes have been closed and the last couple of years I've filed \"\"married filed jointly\"\". I'm not sure how your wife's citizenship status affects any of this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "73b011f69655f917a15b39983de15ef1", "text": "Do you have a spouse? You can contribute to a spouse's IRA if you guys are filling a joint tax return", "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": "6ad27d71c26c2cf8ace671bd95284a99", "text": "From the FAQ I think it is fairly clear that it is OK: Can I open a Help to Buy: ISA with someone else? No. Help to Buy: ISAs are only available to individuals. But, you can put more than one government bonus towards the home you are buying. So, if you are buying a home with someone else who is also a first time buyer, they can open and save money into their own account and receive a government bonus. Inference: if you are buying a home with someone else who is NOT also a first time buyer, they can't get their own account and get the bonus (but there's no problem with you doing so). Alternatively - open the Help To Buy ISA, you'll still get the normal interest rate on it, and then argue the case with the conveyancer / solicitor once you actually buy the property and claim the Government bonus. In fact, here is the declaration you (well, specifically, your girlfriend) would have to sign at the point you jointly make the purchase. Nothing in there that forbids it being a joint purchase with a non-first-time-buyer either.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5ca0c78419f78426e0ab28fd31691ec3", "text": "Congrats! Make sure you nail down NOW what happens to the house should you eventually separate. I know lots of unmarried couples who have stayed together for decades and look likely to do so for life; I've also seen some marriages break up that I wouldn't have expected to. Better to have this discussion NOW. Beyond that: Main immediate implications are that you have new costs (taxes, utilities, maintenance) and new tax issues (mortgage interest and property tax deductability) and you're going to have to figure out how to allocate those between you (if there is a between; not sure whether unmarried couples can file jointly these days).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "785dfcde9313891b41c7a84d465d469b", "text": "I feel there are two types of answer: One: the financial. Suck all the emotion out of the situation, and treat the two individuals as individuals. If that works for the two of you, fantastic. Two: the philosophical. You're married, it's a union, so unify the funds. If that works for you, fantastic. Personally, my partner and I do the latter. The idea of separate pots and separate accounts and one mixed fund etc makes no sense to us. But that's us. The first step for you in deciding on an approach is to know yourselves as people - and everything else will follow.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "24016927c636f3700dfd845e824b6744", "text": "\"It depends on when, where and how the account was setup. If the state has an UGMA (Uniform Gift to Minors) law, the account was probably opened under that -- in which case, your wife became the custodian by statute at age 18 or 21. She has always been the account owner. The \"\"catch\"\" is that if your wife's father died before she assumed custodianship of the account, it may be subject to taxation. You may be in some sort of oddball situation where due to your wife moving, the broker merging or lost records, the phone reps cannot figure out what is going on. I'd suggest working the phone tree a little harder and searching for old records.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f58f8afc6afbfa9998c18fedb9aa1367", "text": "I agree with Option 3 from the accepted answer (His/Hers/Joint), but with one caveat (that my wife and I are finding out). Once you have children, if your income is in the mid-range where you are not paycheck to paycheck, but are not floating in excess money either (ie, you can have a vacation, but you have to plan for it and save up for a few months to do so), the child-relative expenses begin to be a huge factor in your overall budget, such that (particularly if one partner does more of the child-related buying) it can be hard to really keep up the 3 account separation, because those child-related expenses may end up being all of one earner's paycheck. We originally did the 3 way split, where we took rent, car, and utilities from joint (ie, each transferred a reasonable portion to the joint account to cover), and just bought groceries each occasionally such that it was generally a reasonable split (as we both shopped for groceries and both earned close enough to each other that it worked out). But once we had kids, it ended up being very different, and we eventually had to more properly budget all of our funds as if they were basically joint funds. While we still do have separate accounts (and, largely, separate credit cards/etc., except for one joint card), it's almost pro forma now due to the kids.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "18e04e697d83f44d2dcbe03dd7928152", "text": "\"From what you've described, your spouse is a non-resident alien for US tax purposes. You have two choices: Use the Nonresident Spouse Treated As Resident election and file as Married Filing Jointly. Since your spouse doesn't have, and doesn't currently qualify for, an SSN, he/she will need to apply for an ITIN together with the tax filing. Note that by becoming a resident alien, your spouse's worldwide income the whole year would be subject to US taxes, and would need to be reported on your joint tax filing, though he/she will be able to use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to exclude $100k of her foreign earned income, since he/she will have been out of the US for 330 days in a 12-month period. Or, file as Married Filing Separately. You write \"\"NRA\"\" for your spouse's SSN on your tax return. As a nonresident alien, if your spouse doesn't have any US income, he/she doesn't have to file a US tax return, and doesn't need to apply for an ITIN. Which one is better is up to you to figure out.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcc20635328d993b4b926dcedd1615d7", "text": "I started out thinking like you but I quickly realised this was a bad approach. You are a team, aren't you? Are you equals or is one of you an inferior of lower value? I think you'll generate more shared happiness by acting as a team of equals. I'd pool your resources and share them as equals. I'd open a joint account and pay both your incomes directly into it. I'd pay all household bills from this. If you feel the need, have separate personal savings accounts paid into (equally) from the joint account. Major assets should be in joint names. This usually means the house. In my experience, it is a good idea to each have a small amount of individual savings that you jointly agree each can spend without consulting the other, even if the other thinks it is a shocking waste of money. However, spending of joint savings should only be by mutual agreement. I would stop worrying about who is bringing in the most income. Are you planning to gestate your children? How much is that worth? - My advice is to put all this aside, stop trying to track who adds what value to the joint venture and make it a partnership of equals where each contributes whatever they can. Suppose you fell ill and were unable to earn. Should you wife then retain all her income and keep you in poverty? I really believe life is simpler and happier without adding complex and stressful financial issues to the relationship. Of course, everyone is different. The main thing is to agree this between the two of you and be open to change and compromise.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1f9ba9aa9426ce230ecdcf7d11dfdf82", "text": "If it makes your finances easier, why not? My wife and I had his/hers/our since before we were married. I also have an account to handle transactions for my rental property, and one extra for PayPal use. I was paranoid to give out a checking account number with authorization for a third party to debit it, so that account has a couple hundred dollars, maximum. All this is just to explain that your finances should be arranged to simplify your life and make you comfortable.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7c4e586ff0130e9e3fbab06b0e51fd03", "text": "Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ea6e4f78ac33d0f0e43b8b834ebc949d	Should I negotiate a lower salary to be placed in a lower tax bracket?	[ { "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": "b31501ec5e4f4ddfb32b97946a168940", "text": "No. In a marginal tax system, only additional dollars that push you into a higher bracket are taxed at that higher rate. If you would pay 15% on $73800, then when you earn over $73800, you will still only pay 15% of the $73800, plus 25% of the extra amount over $73800. As far as a marginal income tax affects things, you cannot decrease your net income by increasing your salary. (There can be other potential reasons to keep your income down besides income taxes, as asked in this question, but as the answer there suggests, these often aren't great reasons either.) As far as I know, every income tax system that has differing tax rates works this way. That is, I'm not aware of any country with an income tax system where you can decrease your net earnings by moving into a higher bracket.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a47d99a590793c56b5a8336900ddf7dd", "text": "\"I think Feral Oink said it well here when someone asked if they should negotiate for additional benefits in lieu of a portion of salary. \"\"You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time.\"\" Does it make sense to take a lower salary so I can still contribute to a Roth IRA?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ec0911ab39c1fa1e63136f80b996c9", "text": "If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ef325af95e1dfafaa8396f9a31045429", "text": "\"I've been in a similar situation before. While contracting, sometimes the recruiting agency would allow me to choose between being a W2 employee or invoicing them via Corp-2-Corp. I already had a company set up (S-Corp) but the considerations are similar. Typically the C2C rate was higher than the W2 rate, to account for the extra 7.65% FICA taxes and insurance. But there were a few times where the rate offered was identical, and I still choose C2C because it enabled me to deduct many of my business expenses that I wouldn't have otherwise been able to deduct. In my case the deductions turned out to be greater than the FICA savings. Your case is slightly different than mine though in that I already had the company set up so my company related costs were \"\"sunk\"\" as far as my decision was concerned. For you though, the yearly costs associated with running the business must be factored in. For example, suppose the following: Due to these expenses you need to make up $3413 in tax deductions due to the LLC. If your effective tax rate on the extra income is 30%, then your break even point is approximately $8K in deductions (.3(x+3413)=3413 => x = $7963) So with those made up numbers, if you have at least $8K in legitimate additional business expenses then it would make sense to form an LLC. Otherwise you'd be better off as a W2. Other considerations:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d2bef708357c3948a454507e2a585bd5", "text": "So we can lower your taxes, although at a cost of say 4 million federal employees. Now the fun begins... your market is flooded with new employees, so many people applying there isn't a reason to keep you at your pay. It's 2008 again, you lost your job, your $30 an hour job now pays $17, and you're unemployed, but at least your tax bracket went down.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf9d3194a23f0e9f668052dac979fcc2", "text": "If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4598c578108e97addab8de087f9868da", "text": "The penalty is 10% regardless of the tax. If your marginal rate is so low, I'd consider converting some to Roth each year, and not touching it for tuition.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe6f7a9cad2f4520ed898b0c39b47ba", "text": "\"I assume your employer does standard withholding? Then what you need to do is figure what bracket that puts you in after you've done all your normal deductions. Let's say it's 25%. Then multiply your freelance income after business expenses, and that's your estimated tax, approximately. (Unless the income causes you to jump a bracket.) To that you have to add approximately 12-13% Social Security/Medicare for income between the $90K and $118,500. Filling out Form 1040SSE will give you a better estimate. But there is a \"\"safe harbor\"\" provision, in that if what you pay in estimated tax (and withholding) this year is at least as much as you owed last year, there's no penalty. I've always done mine this way, dividing last year's tax by 4, since my income is quite variable, and I've never been able to make sense of the worksheets on the 1040-ES.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8670fe180d96963e64f7335cd3d86721", "text": "\"First, let's look at the tax brackets for single taxpayers in 2016: The cutoff between the 25% and 28% tax bracket is $91,150. You said that your gross is $87,780. This will be reduced by deductions and exemptions (at least $10,350). Your rental income will increase your income, but it is offset in part by your rental business expenses. For this year, you will almost certainly be in the 25% bracket, whether or not you receive your backpay this year. Next year, if you receive your backpay then and your salary is $11k higher, I'm guessing you'll be close to the edge. It is important to remember that the tax brackets are marginal. This means that when you move up to the next tax bracket, it is only the amount of income that puts you over the top that is taxed at the higher rate. (You can see this in the chart above.) So if, for example, your taxable income ends up being $91,160, you'll be in the 28% tax bracket, but only $10 of your income will be taxed at 28%. The rest will be taxed at 25% or lower. As a result, this probably isn't worth worrying about too much. A bit more explanation, requested by the OP: Here is how to understand the numbers in the tax bracket chart. Let's take a look at the second line, $9,276-$37,650. The tax rate is explained as \"\"$927.50 plus 15% of the amount over $9,275.\"\" The first $9,275 of your taxable income is taxed at a 10% rate. So if your total taxable income falls between $9,276 and $37,650, the first $9,275 is taxed at 10% (a tax of $927.50) and the amount over $9,275 is taxed at 15%. On each line of the chart, the amount of tax from all the previous brackets is carried down, so you don't have to calculate it. When I said that you have at least $10,350 in deductions and exemptions, I got that number from the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount. For 2016, the standard deduction for single taxpayers is $6,300. (If you itemize your deductions, you might be able to deduct more.) Personal exemptions for 2016 are at $4,050 per person. That means you get to reduce your taxable income by $4,050 for each person in your household. Since you are single with no dependents, your standard deduction plus the personal exemption for yourself will result in a reduction of at least $10,350 on your taxable income.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6469c3c29865963a8e5df4b2ddec26cc", "text": "\"In Australia there are cases for the argument. 1) We have laws against unfair dismissal that do not apply above certain thresholds. Your position is more secure with the lower salary. 2) Tax benefits for families are unfairly structured such that take home pay may actually be less, again due to a threshold. This tends to benefit charities as people need to shed the taxable income if a repayment of benefits would otherwise be triggered. 3) You do not want to \"\"just cross\"\" a tax bracket in a year where levies are being raised for natural disasters or budget shortfall. In this case a raise could be deferred ?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "536a9451d2d6c78952cbfd226f8e9cdc", "text": "I'd still take the lower total pay with higher hourly pay, because I'm saving myself time. It ultimately represents an increase in efficiency for my time, or an increase in my ROI of time, which most business people would agree is a good thing. I can supplement my income with side jobs or a side business, with the extra time I have. What's really key is what happens to overall employment. If it gets low enough to where workers can find 2nd jobs, then it may truly leave some low wage workers worse off, and the entire demographic worse off as a whole.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9703498d73a8ea7d140baacbd04fce4", "text": "If you know that your tax situation is not easily handled by the standard withholding table then you can use that line to ask for additional funds be withheld. You could also ask for less money to be withheld. Why would somebody do this? They had a small side business that made them extra income, and wanted to withhold extra money from their full time job to cover the extra income. They might have been awarded a big bonus and it caused too much in taxes to be withheld so they wanted to not have as much taxes from their regular pay check. Given the fact that you are young, in your first real job, and almost the entire tax year ahead of you, it is likely that the standard tax tables will be close enough. So leave the line blank or put zero.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a4bd4532cbf311f482521dedb9c34ea4", "text": "\"As long as you paid 100% of your last year's tax liability (overall tax liability, the total tax to pay on your 1040) or 90% of the total tax liability this year, or your underpayment is no more than $1000, you won't be penalized as long as you pay the difference by April 15th. That's per the IRS. I don't know where the \"\"10% of my income\"\" came from, I'm not aware of any such rule.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7156a9fde48c1a3aec096bab435c99e9", "text": "Yes, you can do what you are contemplating doing, and it works quite well. Just don't get the university's payroll office too riled by going in each June, July, August and September to adjust your payroll withholding! Do it at the end of the summer when perhaps most of your contract income for the year has already been received and you have a fairly good estimate for what your tax bill will be for the coming year. Don't forget to include Social Security and Medicare taxes (both employee's share as well as employer's share) on your contract income in estimating the tax due. The nice thing about paying estimated taxes via payroll deduction is that all that tax money can be counted as having been paid in four equal and timely quarterly payments of estimated tax, regardless of when the money was actually withheld from your university paycheck. You could (if you wanted to, and had a fat salary from the university, heh heh) have all the tax due on your contract income withheld from just your last paycheck of the year! But whether you increase the withholding in August or in December, do remember to change it back after the last paycheck of the year has been received so that next year's withholding starts out at a more mellow pace.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b65877af289bc1fa6cac3a7518e7f41", "text": "- Do your homework. What are others at the same company getting for the same job? At different companies? Can you slice the data by years of experience? - If you nail the interview you can leverage another offer with the HR staff post interview - Try to get the interviewer to offer the first number if that's not possible offer a range. Psychology tells us that people don't like to be outside a range so you could put your lowest offer at the bottom of the range and the top +10%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f2bc2c214b9eb7e002d1e82a7014e0c8", "text": "TL;DR: The difference is $230. Just for fun, and to illustrate how brackets work, let's look at the differences you could see from changing when you're paid based on the tax bracket information that Ben Miller provided. If you're paid $87,780 each year, then each year you'll pay $17,716 for a total of $35,432: $5,183 + $12,532 (25% of $50,130 (the amount over $37,650)) If you were paid nothing one year and then double salary ($175,560) the next, you'd pay $0 the first year and $42,193 the next: $18,558 + $23,634 (28% of $84,410 (the amount over $91,150)) So the maximum difference you'd see from shifting when you're paid is $6,761 total, $3,380 per year, or about 4% of your average annual salary. In your particular case, you'd either be paying $35,432 total, or $14,948 followed by $20,714 for $35,662 total, a difference of $230 total, $115 per year, less than 1% of average annual salary: $5,183 + $9,765 (25% of $39,060 (the amount $87,780 - $11,070 is over $37,650)) $18,558 + $2,156 (28% of $7,700 (the amount $87,780 + $11,070 is over $91,150))", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ccaf68ba7bb7c914b03d1c4fe2fa4897", "text": "Tax brackets refer to the range of taxable within which you fall. An income tax bracket usually refers to federal or state tax, not the combined rate. I have put here the tax brackets for 2016 for IRS and State of California. https://www.irs.com/articles/2016-federal-tax-rates-personal-exemptions-and-standard-deductions https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2016-california-tax-rates-and-exemptions.shtml According to those, a taxable income of 100,000USD would fall in the 28% bracket for the IRS and 9.30% for State of California. The combined rate is therefore 37.3%. However, this does not mean you would pay 37,300USD. First of all, your applicable tax rate applies only for each dollar in your tax bracket (e.g. 28% 8,849USD for IRS). Therefore, to calculate your combined taxes you would need to do: Therefore, your effective tax rate would be much lower than the combined tax rate of 37.3%. Now do note that this is an example to illustrate tax brackets and is nowhere near the amount of taxes you would be required to pay because of various credits and deductions that you would be able to benefit from. Edit: As suggested in the comments, a note on marginal tax rate (referred to here as combined tax rate). This is the rate of taxes paid on an additional dollar of income. Here, every additional dollar of income would be taxed at 37.3%, leaving you with 62.7 cents.", "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": "" } ]	fiqa
e7faf622725b75cd018644e0b15fc78c	What are some good ways to control costs for groceries?	[ { "docid": "d049c3fba72110cdabe418e0bc3a78ed", "text": "For a while I tried shopping multiple grocery stores, checking fliers each week from three different stores and then making the trip to all three stores to save ten cents on each item. After a couple months, I decided it just wasn't worth it. So, I picked my favorite store. I shop once a week, after reviewing the flier and making a list. I clip coupons and try to only buy what's on my list. (I confess that coupons sometimes get me to buy a brand or item I wouldn't have otherwise... it's my weakness!) The biggest place that we save money though, is by paying attention to meat prices. I know that chicken and pork go on sale for $1.99/lb every 4 to 6 weeks at my grocery store. When it does, I buy a enough to last until the next sale, and freeze it in single-meal portions. Steak and fish are special treats, but on the rare occasion that they're less than $4/lb, I'll buy those. We also try to limit our meat consumption to every-other-day. It's not worth it for me to obsess over the price of ketchup that I buy twice a year, but on expensive items like meat, and items we use daily, I become familiar with their regular prices and sale prices, and buy extra when it's on sale. If, like me, you don't have room in your brain to keep track of the prices of everything, stick with the things you spend the most on, either because they're expensive, or you buy a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f207b1fabaab64de5b09fc60b0203498", "text": "Probably my biggest cost saving is to make my own sandwiches for lunch. I take this one step further by buying joints of meat to roast and slice for the filling. This not only tastes better but is quite a bit cheaper. For example today I roasted a 5 kg ham (about 11 lbs), it cost me £16 to buy (around $25), but I've sliced it, wrapped the slices in foil and frozen them. I've made around 20 packs, each pack has enough ham for sandwiches for me and my wife for a day. I also do this with beef, chicken and turkey and just get a pack of whatever we fancy out of the freezer the night before so it's defrosted enough to make sandwiches in the morning.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd4c5d991843330a95325b07bee67a", "text": "Definitely don't grocery shop when you're hungry. Also, watch for sales, and then buy in bulk and freeze it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a2a1330a4ca44054a9f3a603ec4b3230", "text": "Also make a menu and make a shopping list from that. It will help you control how much you buy, and help to enforce only buying what you need. You don't need to limit your menu, but buying what you need in appropriate quantities will help. Don't forget to add snacking and desserts to your menu.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "442dd71c5e992e534190f2eb514a4761", "text": "Check out the bulk stores like BJs, Sam's Club or whatever else is available to you. You can definitely save money shopping there but you also need to keep your wits about you as well. Example, if you're buying in bulk only to let food go to waste, obviously that's not good either...", "title": "" }, { "docid": "403c063415348821004e843a9f937fca", "text": "Cooking cheaply is time consuming. We cook cheaply, but we take more time to do it. May be hard for a busy family. If you cook everything from scratch, it's usually a lot cheaper. Also pre-planning meals helps. If you can coordinate your ingredients, you can save money. Saving money takes time and practice. I find that when we're rushed, we waste a lot more food than when we properly take the time required.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1ca5e112fd2e803aee9e1db5b13fbdd6", "text": "Set aside the amount of grocery money you want to spend in a week in cash. Then buy groceries only from this money. The first week make it a generous amount so you don't get rediculous and give up. And stick to it when you are out of money (make sure you have some canned goods or something around if you run out of money a day short). And do not shop when you are hungry.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e24f99a8df26f3672e81886b8bb123e", "text": "All excellent answers. Scott W. already mentioned to look out for sales and many other answers are ways to be smart with portions: don't overbuy, or be smart with bulk buys. But, I'm surprised nobody mentioned one of the things I'd consider obvious about saving money on groceries: coupons! Coupons can save cash. We'll sometimes use coupons for brands we'd be buying anyway, or other comparably-priced brands that we're willing to try. The thing to be careful of with coupons is when the manufacturer is attempting to up-sell you to a premium brand, or trying to get you to buy a product you'd never have bought anyway. Anyway, we especially like the coupons that Costco sends in the mail once in a while, or those they hand out at the warehouse entrance. What better way to save than to: All the better if the items aren't perishable. When we have the space and those grocery savings stars are all in alignment, we load up on such items as paper towels, oatmeal/cereal bars, soap, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3aff05b59ac34c8370ddb014af3aa3a6", "text": "If you are willing to use one main credit card for shopping, use a grocery points rewards card like PC Financial Mastercard. Pay for the groceries using the card to earn points and use those points to reduce costs. The only limitation is that you must shop at Loblaws, Superstore, No Frills, Zehrs, Fortinos. It works out to $1 = 10 points and 20,000 points = $20. So that works out to spend $1 to earn back $0.01.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "72964c17b70acc99fe5256324f292bb0", "text": "This may not help with the overall grocery issue, but I find that there are items that I can do without the name brand version of. A handy rule-of-thumb is to start with the least-expensive brand and work your way up, until you find one that your family likes. For instance, I've learned I can do without French's mustard in favour of no-name, but there's no way I can live without Kraft peanut butter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1028503291e1d7182842563f9ad292d8", "text": "\"Keep a notebook. (or spreadsheet, etc. whatever works) Start to track what things cost as few can really commit this all to memory. You'll start to find the regular sale prices and the timing of them at your supermarkets. I can't even tell you the regular price of chicken breasts, I just know the sale is $1.79-1.99/lb, and I buy enough to freeze to never pay full price. The non-perishables are easy as you don't have to worry about spoilage. Soap you catch on sale+coupon for less than half price is worth buying to the limit, and putting in a closet. Ex Dove soap (as the husband, I'm not about to make an issue of a brand preference. This product is good for the mrs skin in winter) - reg price $1.49. CVS had a whacky deal that offered a rebate on Dove purchase of $20, and in the end, I paid $10 for 40 bars of soap. 2 yrs worth, but 1/6 the price. This type of strategy can raise your spending in the first month or two, but then you find you have the high runners \"\"in stock\"\" and as you use products from the pantry or freezer, your spending drops quite a bit. If this concept seems overwhelming, start with the top X items you buy. As stated, the one a year purchases save you far less than the things you buy weekly/monthly.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "195306591cbdf038204226c63e831db8", "text": "\"Please stay away from snakes. Don't use a credit card to buy your food. Those credit companies will eat you alive. Those are reward points they're giving you. It's like the casino giving you a free $50 to start out with. They designed the game. They are going to win. As for groceries, if you are a coupon clipper, check out thegrocerygame.com: \"\"Teri's List is a weekly publication of the lowest-priced products at your supermarket or drugstore matched with manufacturers' coupons and specials - advertised and unadvertised. Teri does all the hard work and research, and presents it to you in a straightforward format. Log in each week and print your list!\"\" Nathon HouseholdBudgetNerd.com Family Budgets for Both of Us\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad06a8f7ee79717ba364fbcd96d6dbb7", "text": "You may use an app called Flipp (or one that serves your area) to check fliers while in the store. If your preferred store has a price match policy, this can save you a few bucks every trip. Just look up at the app what you are buying and price match it over the cashier. It may or may not work on your store, always ask first. Try to learn some of the products you always buy regular prices. That way you can tell a real special from a fake one, like I write here about the 2/$5 specials. Buy generic brands for things you don't care that much, like bleach and other cleaning products that does not have a real quality difference from the branded ones. Try different cheaper brands until you find one that is ok for you. There are lots of ways to save money on groceries, you just need the will to do so ;) Good luck!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "2ff486ed7898d24d0f4abea2a936f1c3", "text": "\"One trick is to make all purchases end in a particular number of your choosing, say \"\"3\"\". From now on, all restaurant meals,gas purchases, and anything in your control, end them in 3. When you glance at the bill, you can skip these charges, and look carefully at the rest. It's not 100%, as you couldn't easily impact supermarket charges and many others, but it's half of my routine charges.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a1057d9581e4575e06f536cbe97931e", "text": "\"I have the same problem. The people above are right to an extent. You have to be more disciplined. But there is no reason why you can't get there in stages. If you try to do too much too fast you'll just give up. You need to find a system that removes some of the passive barriers affecting you. You need to think what in particular is overwhelming you. For me it was sitting down at the end of the month to write it all down. Writing it all down at the end of the week or even each day didn't work either because it was too much and I had forgotten what stuff was. I'm like you. The bank account is a record so why do I have to retype it or worse, hand write it out? Bleh. What I ended up doing was divide my expenses into four categories: food (to include all medical) shelter, transportation, spending -- with the first three being needs and the last being wants. Eating out is spending. I have four checking accounts with four debit cards. I saved up some money. I put a paycheck's worth of money in each because I didn't know how much I spent each month in each category, but knew I didn't spend an entire paycheck in any one category per month. Voila. No more work. At the store you just put things in the basket by category. At Target you pay for the food and toothpaste with the medical card and the DVD with the spending card. The cashiers don't care that you pay separately. And if you are buying so much crap that separating items by category is a problem, why the heck are you buying so much crap? At the end of the month you will now have a record of how much you spend on transportation, housing (electricity would be paid online from this account for example), medical and fun. That's all anyone needs to help you get started. You can then see if your housing is 35% or less (or whatever percentage you feel is right). The person trying to help the author above is right. A Target charge doesn't indicate whether you bought some oil for the car or cold medicine or a lock for the cabinet door that broke. But when you pay for each of these things under the right account, you do know how the money is allocated. Doing it this way requires little discipline. Before you put the item in the basket, you just ask yourself, is this a want or a need (which is something you should be doing anyway). If it's a need, is it for my car, house, or body. The house is what I use if i can't figure it out (like paying for the renewal of my professional license). that's it! You have to stand at the register for longer but so what. If you are spending all your salary and you stop when you have no more money (assuming you've run through all of your savings, which you will soon if you don't change), then you have no more money to spend. So if you are honest when you put things in the basket(need vs want), you are going to run out of spending money real quick. Your spending money account will be empty but you will still have food money. Set your debit card up so that it denies your charge if you dont have enough money. Once you realize how much you truly spend for needs in each category, yoy will only put that much in each account. Therefore, You can't use the house card to just \"\"borrow\"\" from it till next month. If you do, you won't be able to pay your bills. If you have so little discipline that you knowingly spend your bill money, then there is a deeper issue going on than just finding the right budgeting/cash flow system for you. Something is seriously wrong and you need to seek professional help. When someone is trying to help you, the first step is to determine what category you are spending too much in. Then when you realize it's the house category, for example, you will need to figure out why you are spending so much in that category. A bank statement wont tell you that. So you can do what we did. On every receipt --before you walk out of the store-- write down what each purchase is on the receipt. Then you can hand over the receipts to whoever is helping you. Most items are easily recognizable on the receipt so you wont have to write everything down. you should be doing this for insurance purposes anyway. Again, if your receipt is so blooming long that this is onerous, probably everything you just spent is not a need and maybe you need to turn right around and return stuff. Maybe you need to go to the store more often so there are only a few purchases on each receipt. Groceries are groceries. You don't need to detail that out. For Ikea when you have to purchase pieces to a set, we get a separate receipts for each. So the brackets and shelving for the bedroom will be on one receipt and the brackets and shelving for the other room will be on another receipt. Even at the store I cant figure out what all the little pieces are! But really, if you are making a decent enough salary, then you are probably spending too much on wants and are calling the items needs. So really your problem is correctly identifying needs from wants. Define a NEED. YOU. Make up your own definition of need Dwell on it. Let it become meaningful for you. Oranges are a need. Chocolate is not (no, really it's not! Lol!). So when you are putting the stuff in the basket, you dont even have to think about whether it's a need or not after a while. Wants go in the child seat if at all possible (to keep the number of items smaller). When you are ready to check out, add up the items roughly in the want pile. Ask yourself if you really want all that stuff. Then put some stuff back! At this point ask yourself is the 8 hours I will have to work to pay for this worth it? Am I really going to use it? Will using the item make me happy? Or is it the actual buying of the item that makes me feel powerful? Where will I put it? How much time will I need to maintain it? Then put some stuff back! Get some good goals, a kayaking trip or whatever. Ask yourself if the item is worth delaying the trip. How will I feel later? Will I have buyers remorse? If so, put it back! These are controls you can put into place that don't take a lot of discipline. Writing the items down on the receipt is a more advanced step you can take later. If you are with friends, go first so that you can write down the items while they are checking out. If you are private and don't want to share your method with your friends, go to the bathroom and in the stall write it down while they wait. Writing the items on the receipt while in the store is sort of a trigger mechanism for remembering to do so. That pulling out of the card triggers your memory to get out your pen or ask the cashier for one. The side benefit is catching someone using a cloned copy of your card. In the medical account if you see an Exxon charge, you know it's not yours. Also, while that one account is shut down, you have three others to rely on in the meantime. My spouse hated fumbling for the right card. They all look the same. Color code your cards. We have blue cross blue shield so it feels natural to have the food/medical account with a blue sticker (just buy a little circle sticker and place it on the edge so half is on the front and half is on the back -- nowhere near the strip). I've never been given a hard time about it. Our car is red so the car card is red, etc. If you think four cards is a lot to carry, ask yourself if you would rather carry four cards or keep track of every little thing? Good luck. I know you will find a system that works for you if you keep trying.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fc26d4a800bea172012b60ec4364dd83", "text": "Do a monthly budget, unique to each month, before the month begins, spend all of your money on paper. Use envelopes to help you keep track of how much you have left for things you buy throughout the month. Have separate envelopes for things like groceries, restaurants, clothing, entertainment. Put the amount of money for each category in cash in the envelope. Only spend the money out of the correct envelope and don't mix and mingle between envelopes. Pay in cash, with real money. Don't use credit or debit cards, it's proven you spend more when you are not paying with cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1d48235efe80861624e3349ef501bda4", "text": "\"Spend less. As @jldugger said, shop around for textbooks. Make sure to look for used books: you can sometimes save a lot of money there. Be smart about food money. I could go to our on-campus grill and get a sandwich and a salad for lunch. If I packed both with toppings, the salad could be a 2nd meal for the same day. If you have the option, get a meal plan that is just 1 meal a day, and eat a lot that meal. Don't do the starbucks \"\"pay several dollars for a coffee each day\"\" thing. Small-ish regular expenses add up quickly. Quit smoking (if applicable). Ditch your car if possible. Some colleges are in cities with good public transportation or are small enough that a bike will do. Cars are very expensive. Try to find free activities to do in your free time. Usually college towns are great places to find free fun. Pick-up sports, student concerts/art shows, playing board/card/video games. Make sure to track how you're spending money to look for areas where you could be spending less. There are plenty of tools available to help with this. Some on-campus jobs involve sitting around and occasionally doing something: IE working the checkout desk at the library. A job like this (if you can find one) can effectively pay you for doing our homework. One other very important college-related financial tip is to not take out more loans than you can afford. I've heard a good rule of thumb is not take our more loans than you expect to earn your first year after graduating. Look up average starting salaries for the career you realistically expect to have after you graduate. If you would need to borrow much more than that to get your degree, rethink your plans. Being a slave to a bank for years is a crappy way to spend your life.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1406719d95ff278f1cb5ba03b6d36915", "text": "\"What you are doing is neither one. You are simply watching to make sure you don't overdraw, which itself suggests you might be living hand to mouth and not saving. Keeping track of your money and budgeting are useful tools which help people get on top of their money. Which tends to have the effect of allowing you to save. How much did you spend on groceries last month? Eating out? Gas? If you were \"\"keeping track of your money\"\", you could say immediately what you spent, and whether that is above or below average, and why. How much do you plan to spend in the next 3 months on gas, groceries, eating out? If you knew the answer to that question, then you would have a \"\"budget\"\". And if those months go by, and your budget proves to have been accurate, or educates you as to what went wrong so you can learn and fix it... then your budget is a functioning document that is helping you master your money. Certainly the more powerful of the two is the \"\"keeping track\"\", or accounting of what has happened to you so far. It's important that you keep track of every penny without letting stuff \"\"slip through the cracks\"\". Here you can use proper accounting techniques and maybe accounting software, just like businesses do where they reconcile their accounting against their bank statements and wallet cash. I shortcut that a little. I buy gift cards for McDonalds, Panera, Starbucks, etc. and buy my meals with those. That way, I only have one transaction to log, $40 - McDonalds gift card instead of a dozen little meals. It works perfectly fine since I know all that money went to fast food. A little more dangerous is that I treat wallet cash the same way, logging say two monthly entries of $100 to cash rather than 50 little transactions of left $1 tip at restaurant. This only works because cash is a tiny part of my overall expenditures - not worth accounting. If it added up to a significant part, I'd want accounting on that.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b65a7bc2e4502b2f706e84c5fc12f04", "text": "\"As THEAO suggested, tracking spending is a great start. But how about this - Figure out the payment needed to get to zero debt in a reasonable time, 24 months, perhaps. If that's more than 15% of your income, maybe stretch a tiny bit to 30 months. If it's much less, send 15% to debt until it's paid, then flip the money to savings. From what's left, first budget the \"\"needs,\"\" rent, utilities, etc. Whatever you spend on food, try to cut back 10%. There is no budget for entertainment or clothes. The whole point is one must either live beneath their means, or increase their income. You've seen what can happen when the debt snowballs. In reality, with no debt to service and the savings growing, you'll find a way to prioritize spending. Some months you'll have to choose, dinner out, or a show. I agree with Keith's food bill, $300-$400/mo for 3 of us. Months with a holiday and large guest list throws that off, of course.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c806ddf329c98ccf57a67bdaa8d97fa", "text": "It's hard to be disciplined when the money is right there to be spent. So what you should do is have two bank accounts. One for savings and one for spending. Figure out how much you need to spend per week and have your pay automatically deposit that much into the spending account and divert the rest into these accounts. Never touch your savings account unless it is an emergency or whatever. In fact, if you really want, you should put it as a termed deposit which you can't touch. As the only thing you see is your spending balance, you'll be forced to get used to living within your means. After a while, you're going to forget that you have that savings account at all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "819557c32a8d63b6258f95d14b085c0a", "text": "Put your budget down on paper/spreadsheet/tool of choice (e.g Mint, YNAB, Excel). Track every cent for a few months. Seeing it written down makes The Financial Conversation easier. One simple trick is to pay yourself first. Take $100 and sock it away each month, or $25 per paycheck - send it to another account where you won't see it. Then live off the rest. For food - make a meal plan. Eggs are healthy and relatively cheap so you have breakfast covered. Oatmeal is about $2 for a silos' worth. Worst case you can live off of ramen noodles, peanut butter and tuna for a month while you catch up. Cut everything as some of the others have answered - you will be amazed how much you will not miss. Dave Ramsey's baby steps are great for getting started (I disagree with DR on a great many things so that's not advocating you sign up for anything). Ynab's methodology is actually what got me out of my mess - they have free classes in their website - where budgeting is about planning and not simply tracking. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ec9ed07eed727fa6ea5c2ba8cd7ad1f", "text": "My wife and I set up a shared bank account. We knew the monthly costs of the mortgage and estimated the cost of utilities. Each month, we transferred enough to cover these, plus about 20% so we could make an extra mortgage payment each year and build up an emergency fund, and did so using automatic transactions. Other shared expenses such as groceries, we handled on an ad-hoc basis, settling up every month or three. We initially just split everything 50-50 because we both earned roughly the same income. When that changed, we ended up going with a 60-40 split. We maintained our separate bank accounts, though this may have changed in the future. A system like this may work for you, or may at least provide a starting point for a discussion. And I do strongly advise having a frank and open discussion on these points. Dealing with money can be tricky in the bounds of a marriage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9b1b712e547c0f15af98f56495f9ab7", "text": "\"Budgeting is the key. Saying that you need to eat out less and cook more is good, but ultimately difficult for some people, because it is very difficult to measure. How much eating out is too much? Instead, help him set up a monthly budget. Luckily, he's already got some built-in motivation: He's got a saving goal (trip) with a deadline. When you set up the budget, start here, figuring out how much per month he needs to save to meet his goal. After you've put the saving goal and the fixed monthly bills into the budget, address what he has left. Put a small amount of money into a \"\"fast food\"\" category, and a larger amount into a \"\"grocery\"\" category. If he spends everything in his fast food budget and still has the desire to go out, he'll need to raid his grocery budget. And if that is depleted, he'll need to raid his vacation budget. By doing this, it will be made very clear to him that he must choose between going out and taking the trip. In my opinion, using budgeting software makes the whole budgeting process easier. See this answer and this answer for more detailed recommendations on using software for budgeting.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f5459f1cebd7e7c8731886b20bd6197", "text": "\"I see you have posted other questions regarding household budgets. This is a huge first step. Once you see what is coming in, then list everything that goes out regularly...and then try to break down what is leftover into spending, household maintenance, gifts, haircuts, whatever...it becomes very obvious if you have x to spend and you spend 3x. I budget a certain amount of discretionary money for both my husband and myself to spend each month. All of our basic expenses are covered under other categories, but I found out long ago that we each need some money to blow on Starbucks, DVD's, books, etc without having to defend or explain it. If we spend too much, it digs into the next month's amount, or if we are careful, we get to carry it over. I can impulse shop guilt free because it's budgeted in. Long story short, if you set up a budget and have an amount budgeted for most reasonable expenses, and see what is left over...it becomes harder to \"\"unwittingly\"\" overspend. When you are paying attention to your money, and start looking carefully at how you are spending it, you'll notice.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "293421cc8ae7e7d0518d6fa59d3d4f18", "text": "One approach is to control your budget more effectively. For example work out your essential living expenses things like food, rent and other bills you are committed to and compare this to your regular income. Then you can set up a regular automatic payment to a savings account so you limit the disposable income in your current account. If you keep a regular check on this balance it should make you feel like you have less 'spare' money and so less temptation to spend on impulse purchases. Similarly it may help to set a savings goal for something you really do want, even if this is itself a bit frivolous it will at least help you to discipline yourself. Equally it may be useful to set a fixed budget for luxuries, then you have a sense that when it's gone it's gone but you don't have to completely deny yourself.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dadf7db4f6322107bf0e1a4b102285b1", "text": "Amazon Prime members and Peapod users. Love shopping for grocery online and will try Amazon Fresh. What shocks me is how WalMart and Meijers (MPerk user) have let us leave w/o a fight. 4 kids and we spent ~$200 - 350 a week on groceries. Never heard anything from the brick and mortar stores. Bizare to me.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6c38db2c8d68eabe0afbf16b21489dd2", "text": "Your company wants to raise $25,000,000 for a new project, but flotation costs are incurred by issuing securities (underwriting, legal fees, etc) First you must determine how much of the $25,000,000 is going to be debt and equity. The company's target D/E ratio is 50% (or .50). For every $0.50 of debt raised they want to raise $1.00 in equity. $1.00 + $0.50 = $1.50 $0.50/$1.50 = 1/3 debt, that leaves the equity portion being 2/3. $25,000,000 * (1/3) = $8,333,333.33 (DEBT) and $25,000,000 * (2/3) = $16,666,666.67 (EQUITY) Using the Weighted Average Cost then you would do something like this: = (1/3) * .04 + 2/3 * .12 = .09333333 =$25,000,000/(1-.093333) = $27,573,529.40", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc61bab52d0f73aaebd7179bee102155", "text": "You will probably never see it. The startup at some point may start issuing dividends to the shareholders (which would be the owners, including you if you are in fact getting equity), but that day may never come. If they hire others with this method, you'll likely lose even that 5% as more shares are created. Think of inflation that happens when government just prints more money. All notes effectively lose value. I wouldn't invest either, most startups fail. Don't work for free on the vague promise of some future compensation; you want a salary and benefits. Equity doesn't put food on your table.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
03adde252e3d865e30403b86aab2fe37	How do insurance funds work?	[ { "docid": "ef335ddf7b8b6c077fd5831a9f3447b6", "text": "\"Sometimes 403b's contain annuities or other insurance related instruments. I know that in many New York schools the local teacher unions administer the 403b plan, and sometimes choose proprietary investments like variable annuities or other insurance products. In New York the Attorney General sued and settled with the state teacher's union for their endorsement of a high cost ING 403b plan -- I believe the maintenance fees were in excess of 3%/year! In a tax deferred plan like a 401k, 403b or 457 plan, the low risk \"\"insurance fund\"\" is generally a GIC \"\"Guaranteed Investment Contract\"\". A GIC (aka \"\"Stable Value Fund\"\") is sort of cross between a CD and a Money Market fund. It's used by insurance companies to raise short term capital. GICs usually yield a premium versus a money market and are a safe investment. If your wife is in a 403b with annuities or other life-insurance tie ins other than GICs, make sure that you understand the fee structure and ask lots of questions.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82e4a219be65afcddb94527e7ceb52fb", "text": "\"What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our \"\"Fast Answer\"\" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps \"\"equity indexed annuities\"\" is the more correct thing to search for and not \"\"insurance funds\"\"?\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a97a55ff1d603849bb7ca369e42394b4", "text": "\"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now \"\"officially\"\" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a \"\"generic\"\" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce6a9019ce22a1ff13282f68d93ca6f4", "text": "\"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1370c5e19e8cb80afba418a4da199a96", "text": "Not to pick your words apart, but I'm used to the word laddering as used with CDs or bonds, where one buys a new say, 7 year duration each year with old money coming due and, in effect, is always earning the longer term rate, while still having new funds available each year. So. The article you link suggests that there's money to be saved by not taking a long term policy on all the insurance you buy. They split $250K 30 year / $1M 20 year. The money saved by going short on the bigger policy is (they say) $11K. It's an interesting idea. Will you use the $11K saved to buy a new $1M 10 year policy in 20 years, or will you not need the insurance? There are situations where insurance needs drop, e.g. 20 years into my marriage, college fully funded as are retirement accounts. I am semi-retired and if I passed, there's enough money. There are also situations where the need runs longer. The concept in the article works for the former type of circumstance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f22e794d25699e76013708b1fc5884b6", "text": "Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "36ed6508851f330d7863bd1ba719e95f", "text": "Defined benefit pension funds will typically target treasuries + a spread that depends on how well funded the plan is and the duration of the liabilities. So for example, if a DB fund is 90% funded (meaning assets are 90% of liabilities) and the liabilities have a duration of 20 years, they will target the 20 year treasury rate + a spread that will bring the plan to just over 100% funded in around 20 years. This spread will usually be much lower than 8% p.a. Obviously it's much more complicated than this, but hopefully this gives a general idea.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3434f214ebf6ea235e1f6dc952df5914", "text": "\"How does [FINRA's 5% markup policy] (http://www.investopedia.com/study-guide/series-55/commissions-and-trade-complaints/finra-5-markup-policy/) affect the expense/profit/value of an ETF/Mutual Fund? An extreme example to illustrate: If my fund buys 100 IBM @ 100, The fund would credit the broker $10,000 for those shares and the broker would give the fund 100 shares. Additionally there would be some sort of commission (say $10) paid on top of the transaction which would come out of the fund's expense ratio. But the broker is \"\"allowed\"\" to charge a 5% markup. So that means, that $100 price that I see could have hit the tape at $95 (assume 5% markup which is allowed). Thus, assuming that the day had zero volatility for IBM, when the fund gets priced at the end of the day, my 100 shares which \"\"cost\"\" 10,000 (plus $10) now has a market value of $9,500. Is that how it \"\"could\"\" work? That 500 isn't calculated as part of the expense of the fund is it? (how could it be, they don't know about the exact value of the markup).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a3efdae079a71be2801384b71cb0c248", "text": "TL;DR: Only term is pure insurance and is the cheapest. The rest are mixtures of insurance and savings/investment. Typically the mixtures are not as efficient as doing it yourself, except that there can be tax advantages as well as the ability to borrow from your policy in some cases.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6241d19ae4f4a34d2000f940bf82e549", "text": "The issue is the time frame. With a one year investment horizon the only way for a fund manager to be confident that they are not going to lose their shirt is to invest your money in ultra conservative low volatility investments. Otherwise a year like 2008 in the US stock market would break them. Note if you are willing to expand your payback time period to multiple years then you are essentially looking at an annuity and it's market loss rider. Of course those contacts are always structured such that the insurance company is extremely confident that they will be able to make more in the market than they are promising to pay back (multiple decade time horizons).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f9540286c4bcd9d9b76518407c6796ed", "text": "The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef0646ddfc664fd6b3c620b6b80edd4e", "text": "\"What you are looking for is a pretty terrible deal for you, so I'd say it doesn't exist because there isn't a market for it, or nobody has noticed there is a market for it. In principle I would happily take the deal you offer from as many people as would let me, put the money into treasury bills, and take half the profits while doing pretty much nothing. If I had more risk tolerance I would be pretty happy to have half the value of my \"\"fund\"\" as zero cost investment capital for more aggressive investments. My business would then be a lot like an insurance company without the hassle of selling insurance to get hold of float to invest. Also, most insurance companies actually lose money on policies, but come out ahead by investing the float, so an insurance company with zero cost float is quite a good business. Another answer mentions Berkshire Hathaway. If you read one of the famous Berkshire Hathaway annual letters to shareholders and read the section about insurance you'll see that very low cost float has a large role in that company's success. So, back to your end of the deal: if the deal is that good for me, how good is it for you? I'd have to double market returns just for you to break even. If you're smart enough to pick a financial adviser that can beat the market by that much, how come you aren't able to pick an investment strategy that ties the market?\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efb6e6ad5609821682cc8914bf850d16", "text": "\"The guideline for the size of an emergency fund is just a guideline. I've usually heard it expressed as \"\"3 to 6 months,\"\" but everyone has a different idea of exactly how big it should be. The purpose of the fund is to give you enough cash to be able to pay for unexpected expenses that have come up that you have not budgeted for without you having to borrow money to pay for them. To figure out how big this fund should be, we look at the worst case scenario. Suppose that you lost your job tomorrow. What would you do? Cut your expenses. You'd probably be much more careful how you spend money. Secure health insurance. This would be done by either continuing your employer's policy with COBRA, or by purchasing your own insurance, likely through the Obamacare/ACA market. Keep in mind that most likely your employer is paying for a portion of your insurance now, so this expense will go up quite a bit no matter which option you choose. Look for another job. You'd probably begin your search for a new job immediately. The size of your emergency fund determines how long you will be able to go without income before you need to start a new job. Regarding cutting your expenses, it is up to you how much you would cut. There are things that are easy to cut temporarily (or permanently), such as restaurants, entertainment expenses, vacations, etc. You would probably stop retirement investing until you have income again. The more you cut, the longer your emergency fund would last. Things you don't want to cut are necessities, like housing, groceries, utilities, transportation, etc. I would also include health insurance in this list. Certainly, if you have a pre-existing condition, you do not want to let your health insurance coverage lapse. Your employability is also a factor. If you believe that you would have an easy time finding similar employment to what you have now, your emergency fund might not need to be quite as big as someone who believes they would have a harder time finding another job.\"", "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": "cfee265d5f501a2248dd419c911656c1", "text": "Many mutual funds include such mechanisms. However, the higher fees for those funds (when compared to simple index funds) may cancel out any improvement the hedging strategy offers.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "215e36b5c385dc311d8f50b10a82be08", "text": "Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1592c7926967d762c261dca26cb01931", "text": "I need to see the policy you are referring to give a more accurate answer. However what could be happening, it’s again the way these instruments are structured; For example if the insurance premium is say 11,000 of which 1000 is toward expenses and Term insurance amount. The Balance 10,000 is invested in growth. The promise is that this will grow max of 9.5% and never below zero. IE say if we are talking only about a year, you can get anything between 10,000 to 10,950. The S & P long-term average return is in the range of 12 -15% [i don't remember correctly] So the company by capping it at 9.5% is on average basis making a profit of 2.5% to 5.5%. IE in a good year say the S & P return is around 18%, the company has pocketed close to 9% more money; On a bad year say the Index gave a -ve return of say 5% ... The Insurance company would take this loss out of the good years. If say when your policy at the S & P for that year has given poor returns, you would automatically get less returns. Typically one enters into Life Insurance on a long term horizon and hence the long term averages should be used as a better reference, and going by that, one would make more money just by investing this in an Index directly. As you whether you want to invest in such a scheme, should be your judgment, in my opinion I prefer to stay away from things that are not transparent.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e8a7949dac52aa46d35b309d3756818b	“Infinite Banking” or “Be Your Own Bank” via Whole Life Insurance…where to start?	[ { "docid": "1a179f846cd675420143bd596b5d26a9", "text": "Can't tell you where to go for a good policy, but I can tell you that most brokers make a hefty commission out of your payments for at least a year before you even start funding the tax sheltered investment account that you're trying to buy under the umbrella of life insurance. You'll have to do a lot of homework to hunt down a reputable discount broker or a direct policy purchase from the insurance company. Life insurance requires insurable need. The description is vague enough, that you can probably still get the account despite being a single male with no apparent heirs to benefit, but it raises the question of why you are buying the insurance. Whole life policies require you to maintain a certain ratio of investment to premium payment and you will likely never be able access all of the money in the account for your own personal usage. Compare several policies from several brokers and companies. Read all the critical sources you can about the pitfalls and dangers of commissions, fees and taxes eating the benefits of your account. Verify that the insurance company you buy the policy from is financially stable after the market crash. You are paying a commission to pool your money into their investment fund, and if your insurer goes under, you'll have to get a portion of your money (possibly only the principle) back from the state insurance commissioner. Some companies sold pretty generous policies during the bubble and have cut their offerings way down without fixing their marketing literature and rosy promises. Finally, let us know what you find. It never hurts to see hard numbers and to run multiple eyes over the legalese in these contracts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcf8b136e088e3bd7e2330f24bde5668", "text": "\"Keep in mind that the only advantage that using a tax favored account gives you is tax-free growth of the cash value of the policy. This \"\"Infinite Banking\"\" spin isn't some sort of new revolution in money management, its just a repackaging of techniques that people have been using for years to manage tax liability with some breathless marketing spiel. Before you jump in, compute the following: Now comes the hard part: Life insurance is sold, never bought. The guy pushing this does seminars at hotels sponsored by life insurance agents. The purpose of the program is to generate sales of insurance. Be wary. If you actually have the significant amounts of money required to capitalize this, there are much better ways to get an income stream from that money -- you need a good financial advisor. And if you have a huge tax liability and a scheme like this somehow makes sense, find someone who does it for a living in your state who isn't a crook.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84526a5376e772e1f7468fe10d77e098", "text": "\"Why would you give them the money and borrow it back? If you didn't give it to them in the first place you wouldn't need to borrow! It makes no sense at all. It USED to have a different use--as a tax dodge. You would buy \"\"life insurance\"\" for a low amount of coverage and way overfund it. Let the money grow and in your later years you would \"\"borrow\"\" against the extra value you had built up in the policy. Since this was a loan rather than a payout it wasn't income. When you died the tax liability went poof. Thus so long as what you had to pay in life insurance + the inefficiency of the insurance company was less than the tax rate it was a good deal. Congress closed this loophole a long time ago by prohibiting too great overfunding.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90766eb89e7b14ba266fbcc81ccffeb6", "text": "\"There are a lot of false claims around the internet about this concept - the fact of the matter is you are giving yourself the ability to have money in a tax favored environment with consistent, steady growth as well as the ability to access it whenever you want. Compare this to a 401k plan for example....money is completely at risk, you can't touch it, and you're penalized if you don't follow the government's rules. As far as commissions to the agent - an agent will cut his commission in half by selling you an \"\"infinite banking\"\" style policy as opposed to a traditional whole life policy. @duffbeer703 clearly doesn't understand life insurance in the slightest when he says that the first three years of your premium payements will go to the agents pocket. And as usual offers no alternative except \"\"pick some high yielding dividen stocks and MLPs\"\" - Someone needs to wake up from the Dave Ramsey coma and realize that there is no such thing as a 12% mutual fund....do your research on the stock market (crestmont research). don't just listen to dave ramseys disciples who still thinking getting 12-15% year in and year out is possible. It's frustrating to listen to people who are so uneducated on the subject - remember the internet has turned everyone into \"\"experts\"\" if you want real advice talk to a legitimate expert that understands life insurance and how it actually works.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "46b9389780145eb52c4bdd0b467240b0", "text": "There would be a catastrophic collapse in the financial industry. Not exaggerating. Every bank is a company that's technically held by another company, a bank holding company. Every investment firm typically has anywhere from dozens to thousands of separate little companies (depending on the size of the overall firm) that it uses to manage money and risk. There's ways to try and solve agency problems and moral hazard problems in corporate governance, but disallowing corporations from creating wholly owned subsidiaries is not the way to do it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77d149c0576756ae84bb1c642dfd213d", "text": "Hey I used to do this for a job. having two separate policies is a bad idea. If you decide you need more life insurance just increase the one you currently have. There are usually discounts for having higher levels of cover. Not only that but if you have multiple policies all you're getting is the task of doing multiple claims and maybe some additional policy fees depending on which companies you're looking at. What did you consider when deciding how much life insurance to take?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f8f5fa9a7144cf472c4d3c3c924557d", "text": "\"The point here is actually about banks, or is in reference to banks. They expect you know how a savings account at a bank works, but not mutual funds, and so are trying to dispel an erroneous notion that you might have -- that the CBIC will insure your investment in the fund. Banks work by taking in deposits and lending that money out via mortgages. The mortgages can last up to 30 years, but the deposits are \"\"on demand\"\". Which means you can pull your money out at any time. See the problem? They're maintaining a fiction that that money is there, safe and sound in the bank vault, ready to be returned whenever you want it, when in fact it's been loaned out. And can't be called back quickly, either. They know only a little bit of that money will be \"\"demanded\"\" by depositors at any given time, so they keep a percentage called a \"\"reserve\"\" to satisfy that, er, demand. The rest, again, is loaned out. Gone. And usually that works out just fine. Except sometimes it doesn't, when people get scared they might not get their money back, and they all go to the bank at the same time to demand their on-demand deposits back. This is called a \"\"run on the bank\"\", and when that happens, the bank \"\"fails\"\". 'Cause it ain't got the money. What's failing, in fact, is the fiction that your money is there whenever you want it. And that's really bad, because when that happens to you at your bank, your friends the customers of other banks start worrying about their money, and run on their banks, which fail, which cause more people to worry and try to get their cash out, lather, rinse repeat, until the whole economy crashes. See -- The Great Depression. So, various governments introduced \"\"Deposit Insurance\"\", where the government will step in with the cash, so when you panic and pull all your money out of the bank, you can go home happy, cash in hand, and don't freak all your friends out. Therefore, the fear that your money might not really be there is assuaged, and it doesn't spread like a mental contagion. Everyone can comfortably go back to believing the fiction, and the economy goes back to merrily chugging along. Meanwhile, with mutual funds & ETFs, everyone understands the money you put in them is invested and not sitting in a gigantic vault, and so there's no need for government insurance to maintain the fiction. And that's the point they're trying to make. Poorly, I might add, where their wording is concerned.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b13d1de016d4989c3332d1652aad7563", "text": "the cash is not penalty free. if you take up loans from the policy to pay for retirement growth essentially stops and the interest will eat away policy value over time. so instead of gaining 7-8 % per year and taking withdrawals, you would be taking loans and losing whatever the interest rate is. Dividends are just the profits made from the company which is why its tax free. its considered a return of premium. you are just overpaying for the policy by its dividend rate. whole life is a great vehicle for some situations, but it always comes after a 401k or other retirement savings. whole life doesnt even begin to make sense imo until you are making a few hundred thousand a year and need it for a business buy sell agreement or legacy money to leave children/grandchildren. it doesnt scale well to lower incomes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "71f3d288c088c22004fbb25fa1ba1cb1", "text": "(in response to last comment to me) Ok. I understand now. Forgive me if I appeared to be splitting hairs. When it comes to understanding, exact wording is important. I keep money at home, enough to not be a frequent ATM user, not enough to imply any distrust of the banking system or preparation for Armageddon. You last comments implies the brochure said 13% keep all their money at home, i.e. have no banking relationship. A recent poll concluded 25% of people had less than $2500 available if they had an issue, such as the need to repair a car, or furnace. From that factoid, it wouldn't surprise me that half of those people have no bank acount at all. Not for lack of trust, but lack of money to deposit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "750ac12a6b41230be09d1b31bceb0f1c", "text": "Again, you are asking people to trust you with their life savings so you can take your 1% and the best you can do is google? You don't have a lawyer or anything? Plenty of advisory shops allow you to set up your own business within their infrastructure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "08669eee1815b9a5e012a12507907bb9", "text": "It depends on your situation. For families with small amounts over the FDIC limit, there's account structures that let you get multiple coverages. Things like holding 100k in an account in joint with your wife, each of you holding 100k in individual accounts etc. For larger sums and institutions, there's CDARS. This system spreads your money out to multiple institutions with an eye to FDIC insurance limits. Some people feel this system is abusing FDIC, so I suppose it's possible it gets outlawed / shut down some day. Alternatively, you can just invest it yourself. Treasury Direct allows small buyers to buy US govt bonds at finished auction rates, or submit a qualified bid at auction. You won't get great rates, but Treasuries are about as good as dollars.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2fa6e938d11ef82ce12ac841a01fabd6", "text": "\"From the bank's perspective, they are offering a service and within their rights to charge appropriately for that service. Depending on the size of their operation, they may have considerable overhead costs that they need to recoup one way or another to continue operating (profitably, they hope). Traditionally, banks would encourage you to save with them by offering interest growth on your deposits. Meanwhile they would invest your (and all of their customer's) funds in securities or loans to other patrons that they anticipate will generate income for them at a faster rate than the interest they pay back to you. These days however, this overly simplified model is relatively insignificant in consumer banking. Instead, they've found they can make a lot more profit by simply charging fees for the handling of your funds, and when they want to loan money to consumers they just borrow from a central bank. What this means is that the size of your balance (unless abnormally huge) is of little interest to a branch manager - it doesn't generate revenue for them much faster than a tiny balance with the same number of transactions would. To put it simply, they can live without you, and your threatening to leave, even if you follow through, is barely going to do anything to their bottom line. They will let you. If you DO have an abnormally huge balance, and it's all in a simple checking or savings account, then it might make them pause for thought. But if that's true then frankly you're doing banking wrong and should move those funds somewhere where they can work harder for you in terms of growth. They might even suggest so themselves and direct you to one of their own \"\"personal wealth managers\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "235f063b15ea8d58511488c38c8316ab", "text": "Looks more like an idea for a business rather than an actual business -- especially since it hasn't even launched. That said, it does have its merits. What bank actually holds the deposit funds becomes irrelevant, and may actaully change from time to time as they forge better partnerships with different banks. Think of it like a mutual fund -- the individual stocks (if there are stocks) in the fund are less important than the balance of risk vs. income and the leveling of change over the course of time. It offers services banks offer, without fees (at least that is the proposal) with the addition of budgetting capability as well. It does have downsides as well There is an increased level of indirection between you and your money. They propose to simplify the banking business model, but in fact are only hiding it from you. The same complexity that was there before is still there, with the added complexity of their service on top of it. It's just a matter of how much of that complexity you would have to deal with directly. With that in mind, I would reiterate that they are not a business yet -- just a proposed business model. Even the sign up process is a red flag for me. I understand they need to gauge interest in order to forge initial relationships with various banks, but I don't see the need for the 'invitation only' sign up method. It just sounds like a way to increase interest (who doesn't like feeling exclusively invited), and is a bit too 'gimmicky' for my taste. But, like I said, the idea has merit -- I have my reservations, but will reserve full judgement until they are an actual operating business.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "25874c2a7eeab0057b1f0559a8b40762", "text": "\"Term is the way to go. Whole/universal are basically a combo of term and savings, so buy term life insurance and invest the difference in cost yourself. You should make a lot more that way (as far as savings go) than by buying whole life. By the time term life gets too expensive to be worth (when you're a lot older) you will have enough saved to become \"\"self-insured\"\". Just don't touch the savings :) You really only need insurance when there is income to replace and debts to cover - house/mortgage, kids/school, job income, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a06d0f962d79ab8e476d9ed71d01f442", "text": "\"Buy term and invest the rest is something you will hear all the time, but actually cash value life insurance is a very misunderstood, useful financial product. Cash value life insurance makes sense if: If you you aren't maxing out your retirement accounts, just stick with term insurance, and save as much as you can for retirement. Otherwise, if you have at least 5 or 10k extra after you've funded retirement (for at least 7 years), one financial strategy is to buy a whole life policy from one of the big three mutual insurance firms. You buy a low face value policy, for example, say 50k face value; the goal is to build cash value in the policy. Overload the policy by buying additional paid up insurance in the first 7 years of the policy, using a paid-up addition rider of the policy. This policy will then grow its cash value at around 2% to 4% over the life of the policy....similar perhaps to the part of your portfolio that would would be in muni bonds; basically you are beating inflation by a small margin. Further, as you dump money into the policy, the death benefit grows. After 7 or 8 years, the cash value of the policy should equal the money you've put into it, and your death benefit will have grown substantially maybe somewhere around $250k in this example. You can access the cash value by taking a policy loan; you should only do this when it makes sense financially or in an emergency; but the important thing to realize is that your cash is there, if you need it. So now you have insurance, you have your cash reserves. Why should you do this? You save up your cash and have access to it, and you get the insurance for \"\"free\"\" while still getting a small return on your investment. You are diversifying your financial portfolio, pushing some of your money into conservative investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd268090e8d294325d86e34aae09c31e", "text": "Size note- last I looked self insuring a fleet is insanely capital intensive as you basically have to put enough aside to cover most instances of risk. It's possible for some companies, but others will need alternatives as it's just too much upfront cash.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c804978526144c0bc58523286d033a7", "text": "\"Primerica's primary value proposition is that switching from whole or universal life to term life, and investing the difference is a good idea for most people. However, there are a number of other important factors to consider when purchasing life insurance, and I would also be wary of anyone claiming that one product will be the \"\"best\"\" for you under all circumstances. Best Insurance? Without getting into a much larger discussion on how to pick insurance companies or products, here are a few things that concern me about Primerica: They have a \"\"captive\"\" sales force, meaning their agents sell only Primerica products. This means that they are not shopping around for the best deal for you. Given how much prices on term life have changed in recent years, I would highly recommend taking the time to get alternate quotes online or from an independent broker who will shop around for you. Their staff are primarily part-time employees. I am not saying they are incompetent or don't care, just that you are more likely to be working with someone for whom insurance is not their primary line of work. If you have substantial reason to believe that you may someday need whole life, their products may not suit you well. Primerica does not offer whole life as far as I am aware, which also means that you cannot convert your term life policy through them to whole life should you need to do so. For example, if you experience an accident, are disabled, or have a significant change in your health status in the future and do not have access to a group life policy, you may be unable to renew your individual policy. Above Average Returns? I am also highly skeptical about this claim. The only possible context in which I could find this valid would be if they mean that your returns on average will be better if you invest in the stock market directly as compared to the returns you would get from the \"\"cash value\"\" portion of a life insurance product such as universal life, as those types of products generally have very high fees. Can you clarify if this is the claim that was made, or if they are promising returns above those of the general stock market? If it is the latter, run! Only a handful of superstar investors (think Warren Buffet, Peter Lynch, and Bill Gross) have ever consistently outperformed the stock market as a whole, and typically only for a limited period of time. In either case, I would have the same concerns here as stated in reasons #1 and #2 above. Even more so than with insurance, if you need investment advice, I'd recommend working with someone who is fully dedicated to that type of work, such as a fee-only financial planner (http://www.napfa.org/ is a good place to find one). Once you know how you want to invest, I would again recommend shopping around for a reputable but inexpensive broker and compare their fees with Primerica's. Kudos on having a healthy level of skepticism and listening to your gut. Also, remember that if you are not interested in their offer, you don't have to prove them wrong - you can simply say \"\"no thank you.\"\" Best of luck!\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "045b03d3530b3e3f6265ebefedc303b3", "text": "\"Remember where they said \"\"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? That is the essence of this problem. You have freedom including freedom to mess up. On the practical side, it's a matter of structuring your money so it's not available to you for impulse buying, and make it automatic. Have you fully funded your key necessities? You should have an 8-month emergency fund in reserve, in a different savings account. Are you fully maxing out your 401K, 403B, Roth IRA and the like? This single act is so powerful that you're crazy not to - every $1 you save will multiply to $10-100 in retirement. I know a guy who tours the country in an RV with pop-outs and tows a Jeep. He was career Air Force, so clearly not a millionaire; he saved. Money seems so trite to the young, but Seriously. THIS. Have auto-deposits into savings or an investment account. Carry a credit card you are reluctant to use for impulse buys. Make your weekly ATM withdrawal for a fixed amount of cash, and spend only that. When your $100 has to make it through Friday, you think twice about that impulse buy. What about online purchases? Those are a nightmare to manage. If you spend $40 online, reduce your ATM cash withdrawal by $40 the next week, is the best I can think of. Keep in mind, many of these systems are designed to be hard to resist. That's what 1-click ordering is about; they want you to not think about the bill. That's what the \"\"discount codes\"\" are about; those are a fake artifice. Actually they have marked up the regular price so they are only \"\"discounting\"\" to the fair price. You gotta see the scam, unsubscribe and/or tune out. They are preying on you. Get angry about that! Very good people to follow regularly are Suze Orman or Dave Ramsey, depending on your tastes. As for the ontological... freedom is a hard problem. Once food and shelter needs are met, then what? How does a free person deny his own freedom to structure his activities for a loftier goal? Sadly, most people pitching solutions are scammers - churches, gurus, etc. - after your money or your mind. So anyone who is making an effort to get seen by you and promise to help you is probably not a good guy. Though, Napoleon Hill managed to pry some remarkable knowledge from Andrew Carnegie in his book \"\"Think and Grow Rich\"\". Tony Robbins is brilliant, but he lets his staff sell expensive seminars and kit, which make him look like just another shyster. Don't buy that stuff, you don't need it and he doesn't need you to buy it.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a924e9c0149bfcb9783023f072d2b620", "text": "Well, actually in your brother's case it's quite a good idea. Not as a savings method, but as what it is - insurance. As long as he's alive and well he can pay his own debts, they're his problem and it's his responsibility. Once something, god forbid, happens to him - the debts become the problem of his survivors (you, if he doesn't have kids, for example). His life insurance should provide the means to pay off the inherited debts. So the point of life insurance as insurance is to make sure those who survive you have enough of what they need to continue living as they were with you. Some policies take into account injuries and work disability, so that not only when you die there are benefits, but also when you had an accident and can no longer work. Some policies are basically a combination of savings and insurance - that's the policies discussed in the investing threads. edit as clarified in the comments, debts cannot be inherited per se, they will be paid off from the estate before disbursement of such. What it means though is, if the deceased had accrued significant debt, all his assets may go to the creditors leaving survivors with nothing, which may also mean homeless. That was the kind of a problem I was talking about.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e5191a616ae0a6e4a98eead3b6982bce	Is it smart to only invest in mid- and small-cap stock equity funds in my 401(k)?	[ { "docid": "0bdccbd5c576bbbfa192d1788df6e45a", "text": "\"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "76111de6de2f2ba150bc424f08767301", "text": "The benefit of the 401K and IRAs are that reallocating and re balancing are easy. They don't want you to move the funds every day, but you are not locked in to your current allocations. The fact that you mentioned in a comment that you also have a Roth IRA means that you should look at all retirements as a whole. Look at what options you have in the 401K and also what options you have with the IRA. Then determine the overall allocation between bonds, stocks, international, REIT, etc. Then use the mix of funds in the IRA and 401K to meet that goal. Asking if the 401K should be small and mid cap only can't be answered without knowing not just your risk tolerances but the total money in the 401K and IRA. Pick an allocation, map the available funds to that allocation. Rebalance every year. But review the allocation in a few years or after a life event such as: change of job, getting married, having kids, or buying a house.", "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": "874263987ed13e8dad9d7c904843d6e1", "text": "Your initial premise (mid-cap and small-cap company stocks have outperformed the market) is partially correct - they have, over many 40 yr periods, provided higher returns than large caps (or bond funds). The important thing to consider here is that risk adjusted, the returns from a diversified portfolio are far more robust - with proper asset allocation you and expect high returns and reduce your risk simultaneously. Imagine this scenario - you decide to stick to small / mid caps for 10 - 15 yrs and move into a more diversified portfolio then. Had you made that decision during a sustained period of poor small cap performance (late 80s or the 40's) you would have lost a boatload of return, as those were periods were small / mids underperformed the market as a whole, and large caps in particular. As an example, from 1946 to 1958 large caps outperformed small every single year. If 2016 were to be the first year of a similar trend, you've done yourself a major disservice. Since the dot com crash small /mids have outperformed for sure, pretty much every year - but that doesn't mean that they will continue to do so. The reason asset allocation exists is precisely this - over a 40 yr period, no single asset class outperforms a diversified portfolio. If you attempt to time the market, even if you do so with a multi-decade time horizon in mind, there a good chance that you will do more poorly.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "424e2f75897201bd354f7f3e56b09a66", "text": "\"Mutual funds invest according to their prospectus. If they declare that they match the investments to a certain index - then that's what they should do. If you don't want to be invested in a company that is part of that index, then don't invest in that fund. Short-selling doesn't \"\"exclude\"\" your investment. You cannot sell your portion of the position in the fund to cover it. Bottom line is that money has no smell. But if you want to avoid investing in a certain company and it is important to you - you should also avoid the funds that invest in it, and companies that own portions of it, and also probably the companies that buy their products or services. Otherwise, its just \"\"nice talk\"\" bigotry.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9c86e9d22d6efc89d32749eb6995cce7", "text": "\"You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled \"\"MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A\"\" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments.\"", "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": "2c44d62e3ce8df5859c2428ecb00f5a3", "text": "Note that many funds just track indexes. In that case, you essentially don't have to worry about the fund manager making bad decisions. In general, the statistics are very clear that you want to avoid any actively managed fund. There are many funds that are good all-in-one investments. If you are in Canada, for example, Canadian Couch Potato recommends the Tangerine Investment Funds. The fees are a little high, but if you don't have a huge investment, one of these funds would be a good choice and appropriate for 100% of your investment. If you have a larger investment, to the point that Tangerine's MER scares you a little, you still may well look at a three or four fund (or ETF) portfolio. You may choose to use an actively-managed fund even though you know there's virtually no chance it'll beat a fund that just tracks an index, long-term. In that case, I'd recommend devoting only a small portion of your portfolio to this fund. Many people suggest speculating with no more than 10% of your combined investment. Note that other people are more positive on actively-managed funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f238a39c1647a151a0184a59ce1b787b", "text": "There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e7dd6fe932a88902d7ad3c1efd10deb", "text": "On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7436eb25a30020c21f3702ee266941b", "text": "\"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55baf837a5adacbc1887364ddc7a650d", "text": "As a 22 year old planning for your financial life, it is obvious to say that saving as much as you can to invest for the long run is the smartest thing to do from a financial point of view. In general, at this point, aged 22, you can take as much risk as you'll ever will. You're investing for the very long term (+30/+40 years). The downside of risk, the level of uncertainty on returns (positive or negative), is most significant on the short term (<5years). While the upside of risk, assuming you can expect higher returns the more risk you take, are most significant on the long term. In short: for you're financial life, it's smart to save as much as you can and invest these savings with a lot of risk. So, what is smart to invest in? The most important rule is to keep your investment costs as low as possible. Risk and returns are strongly related, however investment costs lower the returns, while you keep the risk. Be aware of the investment industry marketing fancy investment products. Most of them leave you with higher costs and lower returns. Research strongly suggests that an lowcost etf portfolio is our best choice. Personally, i disregard this new smart beta hype as a marketing effort from the financial industry. They charge more investment costs (that's a certain) and promise better returns because they are geniuses (hmmm...). No thanks. As suggested in other comments, I would go for an low cost (you shouldn't pay more than 0.2% per year) etf portfolio with a global diversification, with at least 90% in stocks. Actually that is what I've been doing for three years now (I'm 27 years old).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b473900266d99d7287e105b68cc01dd", "text": "\"You could end up with nothing, yes. I imagine those that worked at Enron years ago if their 401(k) was all in company stock would have ended up with nothing to give an example here. However, more likely is for you to end up with less than you thought as you see other choices as being better that with the benefit of hindsight you wish you had made different choices. The strategies will vary as some people will want something similar to a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" kind of investment and there may be fund choices where a fund has a targeted retirement date some years out into the future. These can be useful for people that don't want to do a lot of research and spend time deciding amongst various choices. Other people may prefer something a bit more active. In this case, you have to determine how much work do you want to do, do you want to review fund reviews on places like Morningstar, and do periodic reviews of your investments, etc. What works best for you is for you to resolve for yourself. As for risks, here are a few possible categories: Time - How many hours a week do you want to spend on this? How much time learning this do you want to do in the beginning? While this does apply to everyone, you have to figure out for yourself how much of a cost do you want to take here. Volatility - Some investments may fluctuate in value and this can cause issues for some people as it may change more than they would like. For example, if you invest rather aggressively, there may be times where you could have a -50% return in a year and that isn't really acceptable to some people. Inflation - Similarly to those investments that vary wildly there is also the risk that with time, prices generally rise and thus there is something to be said for the purchasing power of your investment. If you want to consider this in more detail consider what $1,000,000 would have bought 30 years ago compared to now. Currency risk - Some investments may be in other currencies and thus there is a risk of how different denominations may impact a return. Fees - How much do your fund's charge in the form of annual expense ratio? Are you aware of the charges being taken to manage your money here?\"", "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": "343b24de5189776bc486e66405d050f6", "text": "Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a93de0c47ea465ff6df525d0abc886ad", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723", "text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?", "title": "" }, { "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": "23a367cc4cc26f7b38defa6fc30ff439", "text": "Why do all this work yourself? Pay a modest price to have a professional do this for you. Look at the tickers PUTX, PUTW.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
b541cf44bb9c7073f1f33f87fbcd67fd	Does high frequency trading (HFT) punish long-term investment?	[ { "docid": "81672f347fadcd53ec6ff20a2ae9f470", "text": "No, at least not noticeably so. The majority of what HFT does is to take advantage of the fact that there is a spread between buy and sell orders on the exchange, and to instantly fill both orders, gaining relatively risk-free profit from some inherent inefficiencies in how the market prices stocks. The end result is that intraday trading of the non-HFT nature, as well as speculative short-term trading will be less profitable, since HFT will cause the buy/sell spread to be closer than it would otherwise be. Buying and holding will be (largely) unaffected since the spread that HFT takes advantage of is miniscule compared to the gains a stock will experience over time. For example, when you go to buy shares intending to hold them for a long time, the HFT might cost you say, 1 to 2 cents per share. When you go to sell the share, HFT might cost you the same again. But, if you held it for a long time, the share might have doubled or tripled in value over the time you held it, so the overall effect of that 2-4 cents per share lost from HFT is negligible. However, since the HFT is doing this millions of times per day, that 1 cent (or more commonly a fraction of a cent) adds up to HFTs making millions. Individually it doesn't affect anyone that much, but collectively it represents a huge loss of value, and whether this is acceptable or not is still a subject of much debate!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bce49c9f14e16724303feccaa0b44cf", "text": "I disagree strongly with the other two answers posted thus far. HFT are not just liquidity providers (in fact that claim is completely bogus, considering liquidity evaporates whenever the market is falling). HFT are not just scalping for pennies, they are also trading based on trends and news releases. So you end up having imperfect algorithms, not humans, deciding the price of almost every security being traded. These algorithms data mine for news releases or they look for and make correlations, even when none exist. The result is that every asset traded using HFT is mispriced. This happens in a variety of ways. Algos will react to the same news event if it has multiple sources (Ive seen stocks soar when week old news was re-released), algos will react to fake news posted on Twitter, and algos will correlate S&P to other indexes such as VIX or currencies. About 2 years ago the S&P was strongly correlated with EURJPY. In other words, the American stock market was completely dependent on the exchange rate of two currencies on completely different continents. In other words, no one knows the true value of stocks anymore because the free market hasnt existed in over 5 years.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "941aef807b75234d032142cb464d03de", "text": "\"Not really. High frequency traders affect mainly short term investors. If everyone invested long-term and traded infrequently, there would be no high frequency trading. For a long term investor, you by at X, hold for several years, and sell at Y. At worst, high frequency trading may affect \"\"X\"\" and \"\"Y\"\" by a few pennies (and the changes may cancel out). For a long term trader that doesn't amount to a \"\"hill of beans\"\" It is other frequent traders that will feel the loss of those \"\"pennies.\"\"\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1479b4eb0af174904498d34db9675862", "text": "\"I don't think that HFT is a game-changer for retail investors. It does mean that amateur daytraders need to pack it up and go home, because the HFT guys are smarter, faster and have more money than you. I'm no Warren Buffet, but I've done better in the market over the last 4 years than I ever have, and I've been actively investing since 1995. You need to do your research and understand what you're investing in. Barring outliers like the \"\"Flash Crash\"\", nothing has changed. You have a great opportunity to buy quality companies with long track records of generous dividends right now for the \"\"safe\"\" part of your portfolio. You have great value stock opportunities. You have great opportunities to take risks on good companies the will benefit from economic recovery. What has changed is that the \"\"set it and forget it\"\" advice that people blindly followed from magazines doesn't work anymore. If you expect to park your money in Index funds and don't manage your money, you're going to lose. Remember that saying \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\"? You buy low when everyone is freaked out and you hear Gold commercials 24x7 on the radio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27c4e69d2f392f68687ad026b2b9ae91", "text": "The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.", "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": "03bc7edadda951c2a1ee39f827de7419", "text": "I dont think you understand teh main problem with HFT, they locate the machines next to the exchanges, and make money based on the latency between exchanges. This is not something anyone but them can do. And it is basically cheating the market. You ever see the scam.. it was in mash, where [Frank Burns](http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopics/MAS*H----Out-of-Sight-Out-of-Mind-181978.html) got the radio signals early for the games, and would place bets on the games already knowing the outcome for when they were broadcast on official armed forces radio. That is what HFC is. They get the score of the game before you do, and then bet on the game. and yes they place a lot of orders and cancel them, that isnt to slow other traders but to force more latency on the system, so they can know the scores even earlier.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a45c4bac1eea28b1ec31818d9dbc1df1", "text": "HFT doesn't increase correlations nor do hedge funds, If you look at the euro crisis, correlations have skyrocketed, then in late december jan and feb during the rally the correlations started subsiding and specific risk started taking over, crisis mode increases correlations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "89ce8330c1188a7e46ca04b2cc8cf14a", "text": "> It will have minimal effects on buy & hold traders since they typically research for a long time, then buy & hold stock for many months. This is the part I never understand. If a short term tax doesn't affect buy & hold traders, when why would HFT affect buy & hold traders?", "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": "2497dced1eee532e6563c6de5196b408", "text": "It's not necessarily the case that HFT acts as a tax on small traders. I haven't seen any studies demonstrating that HFT increases the average cost of shares; if anything small investors will be largely unaffected by HFT as it will be random noise to them, sometimes creating a slight increase, sometimes a slight decrease. The people most affected by HFT are institutional investors, whom HFT desks are pretty good at predicting the order pattern of and hence exploiting. They have no interest or capacity to exploit the small guys.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35d6242a9c18d05aa1c2988f791bd14e", "text": "In some senses, any answer to this question is going to be opinion based - nobody outside of HFT firms really know what they do, as they tend to be highly secretive due to the competitive nature of the activity they're engaged in. What's more, people working at HFT firms are bound by confidentiality agreements, so even those in the industry have no idea how other firms operate. And finally, there tend to be very, very few people at each firm who have any kind of overall picture of how things work. The hardware and software that is used to implement HFT is 'modular', and a developer will work on a single component, having no idea how it fits into a bigger machine (a programmer, for instance, might right routines to perform a function for variable 'k', but have absolutely no idea for what 'k' stands!) Keeping this in mind and returning to the question . . . The one thing that is well known about HFT is that it is done at incredibly high speeds, making very small profits many thousands of times per day. Activities are typically associated with market making and 'scalping' which profits from or within the bid-ask spread. Where does all this leave us? At worst, the average investor might get clipped for a few cents per round trip in a stock. Given that investing buy its very nature involves long holding periods and (hopefully) large gains, the dangers associated with the activities of HFT are negligible for the average trader, and can be considered no more than a slight markup in execution costs. A whole other area not really touched upon in the answers above is the endemic instability that HFT can bring to entire financial markets. HFT is associated with the provision of liquidity, and yet this liquidity can vanish very suddenly at times of market stress as the HFT remove themselves from the market; the possibility of lack of liquidity is probably the biggest market-wide danger that may arise from HFT operations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4efe3b27a94d2a15b4ac20365bdb87a6", "text": "There is no reason that HFT in itself should be illegal. It provides a significant advantage to companies with access to those automated systems but then, we might as well eschew NASDAQ and go back to the manually traded days of NYSE or ban day trading in favor of long-term investing. What is problematic is that they place and immediately cancel large number of orders for two reasons - to test the market and to slow down the competition. A proposed ~~tax~~fee to charge for cancellation of non-executed trades seems like an interesting solution.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "395e4a466026a14fb6261c61f25969b5", "text": "\"A lot of people have already explained that your assumptions are the issue, but I'll throw in my 2¢. There are a lot of people who do the opposite of long term investing. It's called high frequency trading. I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article for more info, but very basically, high frequency traders use programs to determine which stocks to buy and which ones to sell. An example program might be \"\"buy if the stock is increasing and sell if I've held it more than 1 second.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35b71b8af2271d48d916b263296b0d80", "text": "\"You're not making any sort of a persuasive argument why predatory HFT should be allowed to levy a tax on the system. Yes, computer trading is heck of a lot better than paper trading. You're citing an article from 2010 that states things I'm not even arguing against as somehow supporting this \"\"tax\"\", the mechanisms of which the author was not even aware of at the time. There is no valid argument for why this tax is necessary or good for anyone but the firms profiting from it. I'm all for lower spreads and near instant order processing, but that doesn't excuse some greedy prick from scalping my 401k a point or two of compounding interest every year.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "58d36651cc5f1d4b3e8327bc4833378a", "text": "\"If you're investing for the long term your best strategy is going to be a buy-and-hold strategy, or even just buying a few index funds in several major asset classes and forgetting about it. Following \"\"market conditions\"\" is about as useful to the long term trader as checking the weather in Anchorage, Alaska every day (assuming that you don't live in Anchorage, Alaska). Let me suggest treating yourself to a subscription to The Economist and read it once a week. You'll learn a lot more about investing, economics, and world trends, and you won't be completely in the dark if there are major structural changes in the world (like gigantic housing bubbles) that you might want to know about.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cdfc4ac08efcdf6c897b314dd526af49", "text": "Not really. This just shows you might be able to fill huge orders a little less cheaply now, but then somebody else gets to fill it at a better price and the HFT/Market Maker took on some risk for some profit. That's pretty much the definition of providing liquidity. How is this raising prices? It's not. Raising prices would be if HFT bought like 2mil worth of stock and just held it for some time, then tried to sell it to you later at a better price, but that's just investing.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b89990eeba193697f81dbf2659aaadf4", "text": "\"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
d5d4bf11537fb4275fb563d940587994	What is an effective way to convert large sums of US based investments to foreign currencies?	[ { "docid": "0242f3b75c5f03501851593ad39b712b", "text": "A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "8ed8bf7342dacdca59824555d53f7ff7", "text": "The reason it's not automatic is that Questrade doesn't want to force you to convert in margin accounts at the time of buying the stock. What if you bought a US stock today and the exchange rate happened to be very unfavorable (due to whatever), wouldn't you rather wait a few days to exchange the funds rather than lose on conversion right away? In my opinion, Questrade is doing you a favor by letting you convert at your own convenience.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f556ec1a4b3445c80dd443fbfc037af", "text": "I prefer to use a Foreign Exchange transfer service. You will get a good exchange rate (better than from Paypal or from your bank) and it is possible to set it up with no transfer fees on both ends. You can use an ACH transfer from your US bank account to the FX's bank account and then a SEPA transfer in Europe to get the funds into your bank account. Transfers can also go in the opposite direction (Europe to USA). I've used XE's service (www.xe.com) and US Forex's service (www.usforex.com). Transferwise (www.transferwise.com) is another popular service. US Forex's service calls you to confirm each transfer. They also charge a $5 fee on transfers under $1000. XE's service is more convenient: they do not charge fees for small transfers and do not call you to confirm the tramsfer. However, they will not let you set up a free ACH transfer from US bank accounts if you set up your XE account outside the US. In both cases, the transfer takes a few business days to complete. EDIT: In my recent (Summer 2015) experience, US Forex has offered slightly better rates than XE. I've also checked out Transferwise, and for transfers from the US it seems to be a bit of a gimmick with a fee added late in the process. For reference, I just got quotes from the three sites for converting 5000 USD to EUR:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d2aa8a4521aa7f29a2be50ecb07d790", "text": "\"In most countries, you are deemed to dispose of all your assets at the fair value at that time, at the moment you are considered no longer a resident. ie: on the day your friend leaves Brazil, Brazil will likely consider him to have sold his BTC for $1M. The Brazilian government will then likely want him to calculate how much it cost him to mine/buy it, so that they can tax him on the gain. No argument about how BTC isn't \"\"Fiat money\"\" matters here; tax laws will typically apply to all investments in a way similar to stocks etc.. The US will likely be very suspicious of such a large amount of money without some level of traceability including that he paid taxes on any relevant gains in other countries. By showing the US that he paid appropriate 'expatriate taxes' in Brazil (if they exist; I am speaking generally and have no knowledge of Brazilian taxes), he is helping to prove that he does not need to pay any taxes on that money in the US. Typically the BTC then is valued for US tax purposes as the $1M it was worth when he entered the US becoming a resident there [This may require tax planning prior to entering the US] [see additional answer here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/48031/44232]. Any attempt to bring the BTC into the US without paying appropriate Brazilian / US taxes [as applicable, I'm not 100% on either; check with a tax lawyer knowledgeable on both US & Brazilian tax law, because the amount of money is material] will likely be considered fraud. 'How to commit fraud' is not entertained as valid subject matter on this site.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef", "text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "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": "" }, { "docid": "d67d3a9f9940d33d75c8fbfa7f854d74", "text": "The general idea is that if the statement wasn't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity. You'll probably want to do the math yourself to believe me. But theoretically you could borrow money in country A at their real interest rate, exchange it, then invest the money in the other country at Country B's interest rate. Generating a profit without any risk. There are a lot of assumptions that go along with the statement (like borrowing and lending have the same costs, but I'm sure that is assumed wherever you read that statement.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6505237c2b3c1430722426bc5eb31baa", "text": "\"If all of the money needs to be liquid, T-Bills from a broker are the way to go. Treasury Direct is a little onerous -- I'm not sure that you could actually get money out of there in a week. If you can sacrifice some liquidity, I'd recommend a mix of treasury, brokered CDs, agency and municipal securities. The government has implicitly guaranteed that \"\"too big to fail\"\" entities are going to be backed by the faith & credit of the United States, so investments in general obligation bonds from big states like New York, California and Florida and cities like New York City will yield you better returns, come with significant tax benefits, and represent only marginal additional short-term risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "90da52d0db0ff30eb04f78eb18a7a3d0", "text": "While most all Canadian brokers allow us access to all the US stocks, the reverse is not true. But some US brokers DO allow trading on foreign exchanges. (e.g. Interactive Brokers at which I have an account). You have to look and be prepared to switch brokers. Americans cannot use Canadian brokers (and vice versa). Trading of shares happens where-ever two people get together - hence the pink sheets. These work well for Americans who want to buy-sell foreign stocks using USD without the hassle of FX conversions. You get the same economic exposure as if the actual stock were bought. But the exchanges are barely policed, and liquidity can dry up, and FX moves are not necessarily arbitraged away by 'the market'. You don't have the same safety as ADRs because there is no bank holding any stash of 'actual' stocks to backstop those traded on the pink sheets.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d72f65a044b71a3bd6360019255b8039", "text": "Part 1 Quite a few [or rather most] countries allow USD account. So there is no conversion. Just to illustrare; In India its allowed to have a USD account. The funds can be transfered as USD and withdrawn as USD, the interest is in USD. There no conversion at any point in time. Typically the rates for CD on USD account was Central Bank regulated rate of 5%, recently this was deregulated, and some banks offer around 7% interest. Why is the rate high on USD in India? - There is a trade deficit which means India gets less USD and has to pay More USD to buy stuff [Oil and other essential items]. - The balance is typically borrowed say from IMF or other countries etc. - Allowing Banks to offer high interest rate is one way to attract more USD into the country in short term. [because somepoint in time they may take back the USD out of India] So why isn't everyone jumping and making USD investiments in India? - The Non-Residents who eventually plan to come back have invested in USD in India. - There is a risk of regulation changes, ie if the Central Bank / Country comes up pressure for Forex Reserves, they may make it difficut to take back the USD. IE they may impose charges / taxes or force conversion on such accounts. - The KYC norms make it difficult for Indian Bank to attract US citizens [except Non Resident Indians] - Certain countries would have explicit regulations to prevent Other Nationals from investing in such products as they may lead to volatility [ie all of them suddenly pull out the funds] - There would be no insurance to foreign nationals. Part 2 The FDIC insurance is not the reason for lower rates. Most countires have similar insurance for Bank deposits for account holdes. The reason for lower interst rate is all the Goverments [China etc] park the excess funds in US Treasuries because; 1. It is safe 2. It is required for any international purchase 3. It is very liquid. Now if the US Fed started giving higher interest rates to tresaury bonds say 5%, it essentially paying more to other countries ... so its keeping the interest rates low even at 1% there are enough people [institutions / governemnts] who would keep the money with US Treasury. So the US Treasury has to make some revenue from the funds kept at it ... it lends at lower interest rates to Bank ... who in turn lend it to borrowers [both corporate and retail]. Now if they can borrow cheaply from Fed, why would they pay more to Individual Retail on CD?, they will pay less; because the lending rates are low as well. Part 3 Check out the regulations", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6f3673e71cdfeb5998f0abfae96975d", "text": "In general, to someone in a similar circumstance I might suggest that the lowest-risk option is to immediately convert your excess currency into the currency you will be spending. Note that 'risk' here refers only to the variance in possible outcomes. By converting to EUR now (assuming you are moving to an EU country using the EUR), you eliminate the chance that the GBP will weaken. But you also eliminate the chance that the GBP will strengthen. Thus, you have reduced the variance in possible outcomes so that you have a 'known' amount of EUR. To put money in a different currency than what you will be using is a form of investing, and it is one that can be considered high risk. Invest in a UK company while you plan on staying in the UK, and you take on the risk of stock ownership only. But invest in a German company while you plan on staying in the UK, you take on the risk of stock ownership + the risk of currency volatility. If you are prepared for this type of risk and understand it, you may want to take on this type of risk - but you really must understand what you're getting into before you do this. For most people, I think it's fair to say that fx investing is more accurately called gambling [See more comments on the risk of fx trading here: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/76482/44232]. However, this risk reduction only truly applies if you are certain that you will be moving to an EUR country. If you invest in EUR but then move to the US, you have not 'solved' your currency volatility problem, you have simply replaced your GBP risk with EUR risk. If you had your plane ticket in hand and nothing could stop you, then you know what your currency needs will be in 2 years. But if you have any doubt, then exchanging currency now may not be reducing your risk at all. What if you exchange for EUR today, and in a year you decide (for all the various reasons that circumstances in life may change) that you will stay in the UK after all. And during that time, what if the GBP strengthened again? You will have taken on risk unnecessarily. So, if you lack full confidence in your move, you may want to avoid fully trading your GBP today. Perhaps you could put away some amount every month into EUR (if you plan on moving to an EUR country), and leave some/most in GBP. This would not fully eliminate your currency risk if you move, but it would also not fully expose yourself to risk if you end up not moving. Just remember that doing this is not a guarantee that the EUR will strengthen and the GBP will weaken.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2570c173435745bdfc94803f83bc1151", "text": "Take a look at Transferwise. I find them good for currency conversions and paying people in India from a US bank account.", "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": "51876fb7fa8f2f1b1c5fc654650a5ef4", "text": "The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5d202b93c164af5f61d58a5cd0aa01", "text": "Here's what the GnuCash documentation, 10.5 Tracking Currency Investments (How-To) has to say about bookkeeping for currency exchanges. Essentially, treat all currency conversions in a similar way to investment transactions. In addition to asset accounts to represent holdings in Currency A and Currency B, have an foreign exchange expenses account and a capital gains/losses account (for each currency, I would imagine). Represent each foreign exchange purchase as a three-way split: source currency debit, foreign exchange fee debit, and destination currency credit. Represent each foreign exchange sale as a five-way split: in addition to the receiving currency asset and the exchange fee expense, list the transaction profit in a capital gains account and have two splits against the asset account of the transaction being sold. My problems with this are: I don't know how the profit on a currency sale is calculated (since the amount need not be related to any counterpart currency purchase), and it seems asymmetrical. I'd welcome an answer that clarifies what the GnuCash documentation is trying to say in section 10.5.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a8d2b79642f69b96d682fd6049896ed9", "text": "I won't think so. Too much trouble for the compliance and internal audit team. Unless you are moving money from Russia, Iran or those non-FATCA countries.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e8b3a68a474978784f4a3391150b187b	Why not just invest in the market?	[ { "docid": "20e5cfc13dc16a19aef4dc3ba03eba08", "text": "\"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dee286912eecf7642f76c9459dad14e7", "text": "The market is efficient, but it is not perfectly efficient. There are entities out there that consistently, legitimately, and significantly outperform the market because of asymmetric information (not necessarily insider trading) and their competitive advantage (access to data and proprietary, highly sophisticated models). I say this despite most hedge funds performing worse than their respective benchmarks. For most people (even very smart people) it makes a lot of sense to invest in index funds with a reasonable asset allocation (based on desired volatility, tax situation, rebalancing methods etc.). The usual example that is cited is RT's Medallion Fund because it has enjoyed quite dramatic returns. Other groups that have been successful include Citadel and Soros Fund Management.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ee77ed54bd1eff8264dd44dd0dfa186a", "text": "Perhaps someone has an investment objective different than following the market. If one is investing in stocks with an intent on getting dividend income then there may be other options that make more sense than owning the whole market. Secondly, there is Slice and Dice where one may try to find a more optimal investment idea by using a combination of indices and so one may choose to invest 25% into each of large-cap value, large-cap growth, small-cap value and small-cap growth with an intent to pick up benefits that have been seen since 1927 looking at Fama and French's work.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e77ce74f301b199067767803456fcef", "text": "Most of it is probably due to ignorance and disbelief. A few years ago, I started doing week-long trades with my IRA. For a while I would make money each time, and over the first year I had about a 20% rate of return. If you asked me if I thought I was smarter than other people in the market, I would've told you no - I just spent more time, and most people accepted a small financial penalty for not having to spend the time directly managing their portfolio. Then I made a few poor choices, and all my previous earnings disappeared quickly. In the short term, yeah, things were great, but that didn't extrapolate out. So now that I'm a few years into investing, I'm almost entirely in index funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aed1fd6d5095bdb95b78195c5e93386d", "text": "\"Index funds do leech a \"\"free ride\"\" on the coattails of active traders. Consider what would happen if literally everyone bought index funds. For a company there would be no motivation to excel. Get listed; all the index funds are forced to buy your stock; now sit on your derriere playing Freecell, or otherwise scam/loot the company. Go bankrupt. Rinse wash repeat. This \"\"who cares who John Galt is\"\" philosophy would kill the economy dead. Somebody has to actually buy stocks based on research, analysis and value. Company managers need to actively fear, respect and court those people. They don't need to be mutual-fund managers, but they do need to be somebody. Maybe activist investors like Warren Buffett will suffice. Maybe retirement fund or endowment managers like CalPERS or Harvard can do this. Better be somebody! I'm all for index funds... Just saying only a fraction of the market's capital can be in index funds before it starts into a tragedy of the commons.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "e518dc8abac3f5ab685656cd8efff5b7", "text": "\"Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies. If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns. If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long. But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market. That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on). I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living. If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money. Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company). Finally, the risk because of leverage and option trading (which is necessary to really take advantage of inefficiencies) makes it not only hard to make a profit, but easy to lose everything. Again to the poker analogy, the guys I've known playing poker for a living do it by playing 10-20 games at once - because one game isn't efficient enough, you wouldn't make enough money. In poker, you can do that fairly safely, especially in limit games; but in the market, if you're leveraging your money you risk losing a lot. Every action you take to make it \"\"safer\"\" removes some of your profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e4f01017045a7b9ef74ebae91eacf5a", "text": "\"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3df74b1e4403aecc1a7f0ac1bc084481", "text": "I read about the 90-90-90 rule aka 90% of the people lose 90% of the money in 90 days. Anything that happens in 90 days or less is speculation (effectively gambling), not investment. And the 90-90-90 thing sounds around right for inexperienced amateurs going up against professionals in that space. I don't know anyone who actually made significant amount money by investing in stocks or other financial products except those appearing in TVs. Lots and lots and lots of people do. I heard that people who actually encourage common people to invest in stocks are stock brokers and fund managers who actually gain by the fact that more people invest. No. It's true that lots of people will give you advice to by specific stocks or financial instruments that will earn them comission or fees, but the basic idea of investing in the stock market is very sound; ultimately, it's based on the ability of companies to create value and pay dividends. Could you please give some valid reasons to invest in stocks or other financial market. Thank you. Well, what else can you do with your money? Put it in an interest-bearing bank account? Effectively, you'll still be investing in the stock market, the bank is just taking most of the returns in exchange for guaranteeing that you'll never lose money even temporarily.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1071e9190b18e5acb8ee47ab1a7007b8", "text": "It's always a good move for risk-averse person, expecially in Europe. Because houses are not represented by number in an index. Therefor if you are risk-adverse, you will suffer less pain when house prices go down because you won't have a number to look at everyday like the S&P500 index. Because houses in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain) are almost all made by concrete and really well done (string real marble cover, hard ceramic covers, copper pipes, ...) compared to the ones in US. The house will still be almost new after 30 years, it will just need a repaint and really few/cheap fixings. Because on the long run (20/30 years) hosues are guaranteed to rise in price, expecially in dense places like big city, NY, San Francisco, etc. The reason is simple: the number of people is ever growing in this world, but the quantity of land is always the same. Moreover there is inflation, do you really think that 30 years from now building a concrete house will be less expensive than today??? Do you think the concrete will cost less? Do you think the gasoline that moves the trucks that bring the concrete will be less expensive than now? Do you think the labour cost will be less expensice than now? So, 30 years from now building an house will be much more expensive than today, and therefor your house wil be more expensive too. On the lomng run stock market do not guarantee you to always increase. The US stock market have always been growing in the long run, but Japan stock market today is at the same level of 30 years ago. Guess what happened to you if you invested your money in the Japan stock market, 30 years ago, whilest your friend bought an hosue in Japan 30 years ago. He would now be rich, and you would now be poor.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d09fd123da8fdc790fbee54b044ccc79", "text": "The stock market is just like any other market, but stocks are bought and sold here. Just like you buy and sell your electronics at the electronics market, this is a place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares or stocks or equity, no matter what you call it. What are these shares? A share is nothing but a portion of ownership of a company. Suppose a company has 100 shares issued to it, and you were sold 10 out of those, it literally means you are a 10% owner of the company. Why do companies sell shares? Companies sell shares to grow or expand. Suppose a business is manufacturing or producing and selling goods or services that are high in demand, the owners would want to take advantage of it and increase the production of his goods or services. And in order to increase production he would need money to buy land or equipment or labor, etc. Now either he could go get a loan by pledging something, or he could partner with someone who could give him money in exchange for some portion of the ownership of the company. This way, the owner gets the money to expand his business and make more profit, and the lender gets a portion of profit every time the company makes some. Now if the owner decides to sell shares rather than getting a loan, that's when the stock market comes into the picture. Why would a person want to trade stocks? First of all, please remember that stocks were never meant to be traded. You always invest in stocks. What's the difference? Trading is short term and investing is long term, in very simple language. It's the greed of humans which led to this concept of trading stocks. A person should only buy stocks if he believes in the business the company is doing and sees the potential of growth. Back to the question: a person would want to buy stocks of the company because: How does a stock market help society? Look around you for the answer to this question. Let me give you a start and I wish everyone reading this post to add at least one point to the answer. Corporations in general allow many people come together and invest in a business without fear that their investment will cause them undue liability - because shareholders are ultimately not liable for the actions of a corporation. The cornerstone North American case of how corporations add value is by allowing many investors to have put money towards the railroads that were built across America and Canada. For The stock market in particular, by making it easier to trade shares of a company once the company sells them, the number of people able to conveniently invest grows exponentially. This means that someone can buy shares in a company without needing to knock door to door in 5 years trying to find someone to sell to. Participating in the stock market creates 'liquidity', which is essentially the ease with which stocks are converted into cash. High liquidity reduces risk overall, and it means that those who want risk [because high risk often creates high reward] can buy shares, and those who want low risk [because say they are retiring and don't have a risk appetite anymore] can sell shares.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b74a8e5c6b2729dd79d54ca6078e1979", "text": "\"It's possible to make money in the market - even millions if you \"\"play your cards right\"\". Taking the course being offered can be educational but highly unlikely to increase your chances of making millions. Experience and knowledge of the game will make you money. The stock market is a game.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "68091295b7fb6720774adf3dda051fda", "text": "It might be easiest to think of stock exchanges like brokers. If you buy a home, and your broker goes bankrupt, you still own your home, but you could not sell it without the aid of another broker. Same with stocks, you own the stocks you buy, but you would be unable to either purchase new stocks or sell your stock holdings without an exchange.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb", "text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "845e0479e15f5acdf8f3035badc04fe9", "text": "\"It's interesting that after reading this article you would make an assumption about where the stock market is headed. This article specifically says that the only way to know that is to know where interest rates are going, and for that we can guarantee no one knows. The takeaway is this: \"\"The key to investing is not assessing how much an industry is going to affect society, or how much it will grow, but rather determining the competitive advantage of any given company and, above all, the durability of that advantage. The products or services that have wide, sustainable moats around them are the ones that deliver rewards to investors.\"\" Intelligent investors should have no concern about what \"\"the market\"\" is doing. Analyze businesses, not the stock market.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8b9343c6b6243a75529b6cc30d3c93f1", "text": "\"That's the way the markets work in THEORY. In actual fact, markets are subject to \"\"real world\"\" pressures. That is, there are so many things going on in the market that the end of the \"\"Lined In\"\" lock up is just one of many. To produce the result you describe, traders would have to hold cash in reserve for this so-called \"\"contingency\"\" to buy at the end of the lock-up. In most cases, they wouldn't want to because of everything else that is going on. To use a real world analogy, would you want to wait until the last possible moment before going to the bathroom? Or would you go now while you had the chance? That's what the decision about \"\"holding cash in reserve for a contingency\"\" is like.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ed032c754551e9da74dcc4af148f192", "text": "\"As Dilip has pointed out in the comment, investing in commodities is to either delivery or Buy. Lets say you entered into buying \"\"X\"\" quantities of Soybeans in November, contract is entered into May. In November, if the price is higher than what you purchased for, you can easily sell this, and make money. If in November, the price is lower than your contract price, you have an option to sell it at loss. If you don't want to sell it at loss, you are supposed to take the physical shipment [arrange for your own transport] and store it in warehouse. Although there are companies that will allow you to lease their warehouse, it very soon becomes more loss making proposition. By doing this you can HOLD onto as long as you want [or as long as the good survive and don't rot] It makes sense for a large wholesaler to enter into Buy contracts as he would be like to get known prices for at least half the stock he needs. Similarly large farmers / co-operative societies need to enter into Sell contracts so that they are safeguarded against price fluctuations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "096893f66144d372513ee827938fe573", "text": "It's not primarily more people investing. In the 1980s stock exchanges went from open outcry trading floors where all trades involved actually exchanging pieces of paper to electronic trading. Once that happened, it wasn't long before most trades were executed by computer programs rather than human beings, turning stocks over rapidly for very short-term profits rather than long-term investment, greatly increasing the number of trades (and also increasing liquidity for the actual investors; it's by no means all bad).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ae44c6f30382b1fa6777f6d226423c5d", "text": "\"I actually think it's you who are missing a grasp of economics. Don't confuse investments in existing companies with investments that actually boost the economy. If I drop $100,000 into Microsoft stock, and someone else sells it, I am just putting money into their pocket. It doesn't boost the economy. If we all dump our money into the stock market it just increases the prices and \"\"value\"\" of the stocks. The only real investors (as in contributing directly to economic growth and productivity) are angel investors, entrepreneurs, and people who invest in IPOs.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "82e1f714bcf875df2343789d9907506a", "text": "\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aa196599aea1fbefd2765f38b644ff1f", "text": "\"This is a good question and my answer below, being the first rationale that crossed my mind, is far from fleshed-out. It's just a reply based on many books on the historical cycles of markets and it's something I've discussed at work (I work in finance). Historically we can observe that periods of financial \"\"booms\"\" entailing high valuations of public equities tend to lead to lower returns. It's a fairly simplistic notion, but if you're paying more now for something - when it's potentially close to a high water mark - then you're returns in the short term are likely to be somewhat stunted. Returns from the underlying companies have a hard time keeping up with high valuations such that investors aren't likely to see a bountiful return in the short run.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
1b0602c270f461024239600ff5778522	Understanding SEC Filings	[ { "docid": "2639dfbfda29a4b457a716086b92953d", "text": "The most important filings are: Form 10-K, which is the annual report required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Form 10-Q, for the interim quarters.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "49f2eb68845aafe0cfeda952031ae99d", "text": "There are a whole host of types of filings. Some of them are only relevant to companies that are publicly traded, and other types are general to just registered corps in general. ... and many more: http://reportstream.io/explore/has-form Overall, reading SEC filings is hard, and for some, the explanations of those filings is worth paying for. Source: I am currently trying to build a product that solves this problem.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "57fb897c059fe117bf76781c5306adb8", "text": "\"Thanks for the response. I am using WRDS database and we are currently filtering through various variables like operating income, free cash flow etc. Main issue right now is that the database seems to only go up to 2015...is there a similar database that has 2016 info? filtering out the \"\"recent equity issuance or M&A activity exceeding 10% of total assets\"\" is another story, namely, how can I identify M&A activity? I suppose we can filter it with algorithm stating if company's equity suddenly jumps 10% or more, it get's flagged\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4f9c71289d37594b5040af9865061a3a", "text": "\"You can infer some of the answers to your questions from the BATS exchange's market data page and its associated help page. (I'm pretty sure a page like this exists on each stock exchange's website; BATS just happens to be the one I'm used to looking at.) The Matched Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"lit\"\" exchanges; that is, where a public protected US stock exchange's matching engine helped a buyer and a seller find each other. Because there are exactly 11 such exchanges in existence, it's easy to show 100% of the matched volume broken down into 11 rows. The FINRA & TRF Volume section refers to all trades on a given date that took place on \"\"non-lit\"\" exchanges. These types of trades include dark pool volume and any other trade that is not required to take place in public but is required to be reported (the R in TRF) to FINRA. There are three venues via which these trades may be reported to FINRA -- NASDAQ's, NYSE's, and FINRA's own ADF. They're all operated under the purview of FINRA, so the fact that they're \"\"located at\"\" NASDAQ or NYSE is a red herring. (For example, from the volume data it's clear that the NASDAQ facility does not only handle NASDAQ-listed (Tape C) securities, nor does the NYSE facility only handle NYSE-listed (Tape A) securities or anything like that.) The number of institutions reporting to each of the TRFs is large -- many more than the 11 public exchanges -- so the TRF data is not broken down further. (Also I think the whole point of the TRFs is to report in secret.) I don't know enough details to say why the NASDTRF has always handled more reporting volume than the other two facilities. Of course, since we can't see inside the TRF reporting anyway, it's sort of a moot point.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "47d2401e8c9dcd835a24ea517a73bda6", "text": "I've seen this tool. I'm just having a hard time finding where I can just get a list of all the companies. For example, you can get up to 100 results at a time, if I just search latest filings for 10-K. This isn't really an efficient way to go about what I want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ff49b9a4ec21562562c1d00890c4883e", "text": "Just look at the filing date of the 10Q and then Yahoo the closing price or Google it. I assume you are looking for market reactions to SEC filings? If you want to look at the closing stock price for the end of the period which the filing covers, it's like on the first page of the filing when the period (either quarterly or yearly) ends. This data is generally less useful, however, because it really is just another day in the market for the company. The actual release of the data to the public is more important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf60d6c3f98bdfe60fe02e3a4d9ce7e3", "text": "\"Apologize - replied without actually looking at the financials. After reviewing -- Starbuck's financial statements use the line item \"\"Cost of sales including occupancy costs.\"\" This is very different than \"\"hiding\"\" rent in COGS, as they plainly describe what it represents. Anyone who wants to derive true cost of goods sold without occupancy costs can look in the footnotes of the financials to find the lease expense for the year and subtract it. This line item is used by multiple public companies (Whole Foods is one that comes to mind), and regardless of their true motives, they have convinced the SEC that they think it gives the consumer the most accurate view of their business operations. As with all financial statements, the footnotes play a crucial role in understanding how a business works. If you want to find opportunities for future value or an Achilles heel, look in the notes.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7586dc4b0b2e7053a50e9deabdc4059", "text": "I think you're looking for the public float: Public float or the unqualified term may also refer to the number of outstanding shares in the hands of public investors as opposed to company officers, directors, or controlling-interest investors. Assuming the insider held shares are not traded, these shares are the publicly traded ones. The float is calculated by subtracting restricted shares from outstanding shares. As mentioned, Treasury stock is probably the most narrow definition of restricted stock (not publicly traded), but shares held by corporate officers or majority investors are often included in the definition as well. In any case, the balance sheet is indeed a good place to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ed31ce88106900d05930df8c45fe709", "text": "SEC forms are required when declaring insider activity. An insider is defined by the SEC to be a person or entity which (i) beneficially owns 10% or more of the outstanding shares of the company, (ii) is an officer or director of the company, or (iii), in the case of insider trading, does so based on knowledge which is not otherwise publically available at the time. At any rate, the person or entity trading the stock is required to file certain forms. Form 3 is filed when a person first transitions into the status of an insider (by becoming an officer, director, or beneficial owner of a certain percentage of stock). Form 4 is filed when an existing insider trades stock under the company's symbol. Form 5 is filed when certain insider trades of small value are reported later than usual. *More information can be found at the SEC's website. Another possibility is that a large number of options or derivatives were exercised by an officer, director, or lending institution. In the cases of officers or directors, this would need to be declared with an SEC form 4. For an institution exercising warrants obtained as a result of a lending agreement, either form 3 or 4 would need to be filed. In addition to the above possibilities, username passing through pointed out a very likely scenario in his answer, as well.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "158613481e53d89848c31269ff5ff721", "text": "I don't think it makes sense to allow accounting numbers that you are not sure how to interpret as being a sell sign. If you know why the numbers are weird and you feel that the reason for it bodes ill about the future, and if you think there's a reason this has not been accounted for by the market, then you might think about selling. The stock's performance will depend on what happens in the future. Financials just document the past, and are subject to all kinds of lumpiness, seasonality, and manipulation. You might benefit from posting a link to where you got your financials. Whenever one computes something like a dividend payout ratio, one must select a time period over which to measure. If the company had a rough quarter in terms of earnings but chose not to reduce dividends because they don't expect the future to be rough, that would explain a crazy high dividend ratio. Or if they were changing their capital structure. Or one of many other potentially benign things. Accounting numbers summarize a ton of complex workings of the company and many ratios we look at could be defined in several different ways. I'm afraid that the answer to your question about how to interpret things is in the details, and we are not looking at the same details you are.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "23061d98412c27df8c5b17ecfd36c5a8", "text": "The balance sheet and income statements are located in the 10-K and 10-Q filings for all publicly traded companies. It will be Item 8.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "915ee91396f3b08a0d4af728c8f3d5da", "text": "\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "909417d8d10021a49861245cd34381e3", "text": "\"Not to detract from the other answers at all (which are each excellent and useful in their own right), but here's my interpretation of the ideas: Equity is the answer to the question \"\"Where is the value of the company coming from?\"\" This might include owner stakes, shareholder stock investments, or outside investments. In the current moment, it can also be defined as \"\"Equity = X + Current Income - Current Expenses\"\" (I'll come back to X). This fits into the standard accounting model of \"\"Assets - Liabilities = Value (Equity)\"\", where Assets includes not only bank accounts, but also warehouse inventory, raw materials, etc.; Liabilities are debts, loans, shortfalls in inventory, etc. Both are abstract categories, whereas Income and Expense are hard dollar amounts. At the end of the year when the books balance, they should all equal out. Equity up until this point has been an abstract concept, and it's not an account in the traditional (gnucash) sense. However, it's common practice for businesses to close the books once a year, and to consolidate outstanding balances. When this happens, Equity ceases to be abstract and becomes a hard value: \"\"How much is the company worth at this moment?\"\", which has a definite, numeric value. When the books are opened fresh for a new business year, the Current Income and Current Expense amounts are zeroed out. In this situation, in order for the big equation to equal out: Assets - Liabilities = X + Income - Expeneses the previous net value of the company must be accounted for. This is where X comes in, the starting (previous year's) equity. This allows the Assets and Liabilities to be non-zero, while the (current) Income and Expenses are both still zeroed out. The account which represents X in gnucash is called \"\"Equity\"\", and encompasses not only initial investments, but also the net increase & decreases from previous years. While the name would more accurately be called \"\"Starting Equity\"\", the only problem caused by the naming convention is the confusion of the concept Equity (X + Income - Expenses) with the account X, named \"\"Equity\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d718680b0cd151f64d4cb4d777842e0", "text": "\"Oh, I understand now -- we're having an absurd, meaningless conversation about an obscure theoretical point. When you can tell me how you can determine a \"\"minimum cash\"\" level from a public company's filings, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, make a simplifying assumption and move on. I misunderstood -- I thought we were actually trying to understand the difference between enterprise value and equity value / understand the implication of an enterprise value multiple.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3291ee40c53d2a8029846397a034b05e", "text": "The actual financial statements should always be referenced first before opening or closing a position. For US companies, they are freely available on EDGAR. Annual reports are called 10-Ks, and quarterly reports are called 10-Qs. YHOO and GOOG do a great job of posting financials that are quickly available, but money.msn has the best. These should be starting point, quick references. As you can see, they may all have the same strange accounting. Sometimes, it's difficult to find the information one seeks in the consolidated financial statements as in this case, so searching through the filing is necessary. The notes can be helpful, but Ctrl-F seems to do everything I need when I want something in a report. In AAPL's case, the Interest expense can be found in Note 3.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "202224a0944b3a276e486131bda2c304", "text": "It does raise the question of whether investment bank analysts are doing their job when advising clients on IPOs. Sadly, no one, and I literally mean not a single person, reads a registration statement in its entirety. That's why I find this criticism of the JOBS Act particularly stupid. The problem isn't that enough information isn't getting out, it's that too few investors and analysts actually do anything with it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bf0540111a2051185227f72005547c32", "text": "\"Generally if you are using FIFO (first in, first out) accounting, you will need to match the transactions based on the number of shares. In your example, at the beginning of day 6, you had two lots of shares, 100 @ 50 and 10 @ 52. On that day you sold 50 shares, and using FIFO, you sold 50 shares of the first lot. This leaves you with 50 @ 50 and 10 @ 52, and a taxable capital gain on the 50 shares you sold. Note that commissions incurred buying the shares increase your basis, and commissions incurred selling the shares decrease your proceeds. So if you spent $10 per trade, your basis on the 100 @ 50 lot was $5010, and the proceeds on your 50 @ 60 sale were $2990. In this example you sold half of the lot, so your basis for the sale was half of $5010 or $2505, so your capital gain is $2990 - 2505 = $485. The sales you describe are also \"\"wash sales\"\", in that you sold stock and bought back an equivalent stock within 30 days. Generally this is only relevant if one of the sales was at a loss but you will need to account for this in your code. You can look up the definition of wash sale, it starts to get complex. If you are writing code to handle this in any generic situation you will also have to handle stock splits, spin-offs, mergers, etc. which change the number of shares you own and their cost basis. I have implemented this myself and I have written about 25-30 custom routines, one for each kind of transaction that I've encountered. The structure of these deals is limited only by the imagination of investment bankers so I think it is impossible to write a single generic algorithm that handles them all, instead I have a framework that I update each quarter as new transactions occur.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
03939b4ac597234df33d749f18b3fba2	Should you diversify your bond investments across many foreign countries?	[ { "docid": "0614273d91d85965c4ba9eaaef0c1251", "text": "Adding international bonds to an individual investor's portfolio is a controversial subject. On top of the standard risks of bonds you are adding country specific risk, currency risk and diversifying your individual company risk. In theory many of these risks should be rewarded but the data are noisy at best and adding risk like developed currency risk may not be rewarded at all. Also, most of the risk and diversification mentioned above are already added by international stocks. Depending on your home country adding international or emerging market stock etfs only add a few extra bps of fees while international bond etfs can add 30-100bps of fees over their domestic versions. This is a fairly high bar for adding this type of diversification. US bonds for foreign investors are a possible exception to the high fees though the government's bonds yield little. If your home currency (or currency union) does not have a deep bond market and/or bonds make up most of your portfolio it is probably worth diversifying a chunk of your bond exposure internationally. Otherwise, you can get most of the diversification much more cheaply by just using international stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc493cfe1797cefdcc73b62863b7e062", "text": "The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "296b7a2e96d632ad86e69f69b97d10fe", "text": "It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "38a479e3fac8a4d4deb5d8caa993d72a", "text": "\"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9ba531704a6a6569d654bfcf27ce3fb7", "text": "\"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "59f0fb24483bf24e45448509eb2c3850", "text": "\"Even though \"\"when the U.S. sneezes Canada catches a cold\"\", I would suggest considering a look at Canadian government bonds as both a currency hedge, and for the safety of principal — of course, in terms of CAD, not USD. We like to boast that Canada fared relatively better (PDF) during the economic crisis than many other advanced economies, and our government debt is often rated higher than U.S. government debt. That being said, as a Canadian, I am biased. For what it's worth, here's the more general strategy: Recognize that you will be accepting some currency risk (in addition to the sovereign risks) in such an approach. Consistent with your ETF approach, there do exist a class of \"\"international treasury bond\"\" ETFs, holding short-term foreign government bonds, but their holdings won't necessarily match the criteria I laid out – although they'll have wider diversification than if you invested in specific countries separately.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c5e0d911af62091f18a6573283d3b230", "text": "would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "eddf10b9b6dae95cbbd0441684ab2b0a", "text": "Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "817db6a727dc0ed4825fbb46bf03671e", "text": "In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a487098eb5d373fc761b2f723dfdff16", "text": "The problem is aggregating information from so many sources, countries, and economies. You are probably more aware of local laws, local tax changes, local economic performance, etc, so it makes sense that you'd be more in tune with your own country. If your intent is to be fully diversified, then buy a total world fund. A lot of hedge funds do what you are suggesting, but I think it requires either some serious math or some serious research. Note: I'm invested in emerging markets (EEM) for exactly the reason you suggest... diversification.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e374af4ed349a2931e35b34bac47367d", "text": "It depends on how much diversification you think you need and what your mutual fund options are. For instance, picking an index fund already provides a fair amount of diversification, especially if you select a Total Market type of index (readily available from Fidelity and Vanguard, and many other fund families). Are you looking to balance domestic vs. international investments? You may want to add an international index fund to the mix. Feel that a particular sector has tremendous potential? Add a sector fund. This investment mix is up to you (or your investment advisor). However, depending on your Roth IRA mutual fund choices, some of these funds may have minimum investment requirement - $3k to open a fund's account, for instance. In that case, you'd have no choice but to put your entire investment into one fund, and wait for subsequent years where you'd be able to invest in other funds after providing additional contributions and/or reallocation any growth from your initial investment. One thing to look at is whether you have an option of putting some of your contributions into a money market account within the Roth IRA - you can then reallocate funds from that account into another fund after you can meet the minimum investment requirement. However, in my opinion, if you start out by investing in a solid, low-cost index fund from a reputable mutual fund company, you've already picked up most of the diversification you need - a single fund is enough.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ee5094a258ae0377d39f8cdcfb21087", "text": "\"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "787e561450535d93b98cac7b6f0088e2", "text": "This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95738b7725dea352d912355a70fde454", "text": "Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4020148b59bb0379647b59069ba0455c", "text": "\"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \"\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\"\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \"\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\"\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \"\"proves\"\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "001308bb6898cc328653575ba51889b7", "text": "Not to my knowledge. Often the specific location is diversified out of the fund because each major building company or real estate company attempts to diversify risk by spreading it over multiple geographical locations. Also, buyers of these smaller portfolios will again diversify by creating a larger fund to sell to the general public. That being said, you can sometimes drill down to the specific assets held by a real estate fund. That takes a lot of work: You can also look for the issuer of the bond that the construction or real estate company issued to find out if it is region specific. Hope that helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0070d47865283906801bfe5184170931", "text": "How is this not a breach of contract? Is it just because the corporate entity you're doing business with has gone out of business? Isn't the parent company still responsible? It seems to me that if it's not, there are a lot of ways that an unethical person / company could game the system.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
28ba4671ef70e89eef33a586a69adbfd	Trying to figure out my student loans	[ { "docid": "a16fe512e77ac7326692ebf030b55473", "text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? I don't see anything you should be deathly concerned about unless your career outlook is very poor and you are making minimum wage. If that is the case you may struggle for the next 10 years. Are these rates considered super high or manageable? The rates for the federal loans are around twice as high as your private loans but that is the going rate and there is nothing you can do about it now. 6.5% isn't bad on what is essentially a personal loan. 2-3% are very manageable assuming you pay them and don't let the interest build up. What is a good mode of attack here? I am by no means a financial adviser and don't know the rest of your financial situation, but the most general advice I can give you is pay down your highest interest rate loans first and always try to pay more than the minimum. In your case, I would put as much as you reasonably can towards the federal loans because that will save you money in the long run. What are the main takeaways I should understand about these loans? The main takeaway is that these are student loans and they cannot be discharged if you were to ever declare bankruptcy. Pay them off but don't be too concerned about them. If you do apply for loans in the future, most lenders won't be too concerned about student loans assuming you are paying them on time and especially if you are paying more than the minimum payment. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? The payoff dates for the other loans are a little hard to easily calculate, but it appears they all have different payoff dates between 8 and 12 years from now. This part might be easier for someone who is better at financial calculations than me. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Your citi loans have a higher balance probably because you have not payed anything towards them yet so the interest has been accruing since you got them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27f2b7a24bc8d76a49fb23344bb4e2b7", "text": "The 5% to 6.5% loan rates are a bit high. You'll probably want to pay those off first, and make it one of your priorities as soon as you have a 6-month savings fund. This should probably take precedence over savings for retirement, unless you're giving up a 401(k) match. Pay extra on the highest-interest loan until it's all paid off, then switch to the next one down, and accelerate the payoff as much as you can. If you're looking at a loan at 6% and a payoff date in 8 years or so (2020), am extra dollar paid now will save you ~$0.60. Not a bad return in general, and an excellent return for something that's zero-risk. The other loans, at 2-3%, are different. An extra dollar paid now on a 2% loan will save you $0.17 over 8 years. That's a pretty mediocre return. If you have a good, stable job and good job prospects, and a decent family support network, and few commitments like children and mortgages, and a low cost of living... generally, the things that help you have a high tolerance for risk... then you should consider investing your money in the stock market instead of paying off these loans any earlier than you need to. (Broad index funds and the like, not individual stocks).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f85e13b9c2caab8271e436ba28db873d", "text": "Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here? The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "edd337c752d17dd13f30fed364e2a553", "text": "@littleadv has said most of what I'd say if they had not gotten here first. I'd add this much, it's important to understand what debt collectors can and cannot do, because a lot of them will use intimidation and any other technique you can think of to get away with as much as you will let them. I'd start with this PDF file from the FTC and then start googling for info on your state's regulations. Also it would be a very very good idea to review the documents you signed (or get a copy) when you took out the loan to see what sort of additional penalties etc you may have already agreed to in the event you default. The fee's the collector is adding in could be of their own creation (making them highly negotiable), or it might be something you already agreed to in advance(leaving you little recourse but to pay them). Do keep in mind that in many cases debt collectors are ausually llowed at the very least to charge you simple interest of around 10%. On a debt of your size, paid off over several years, that might amount to more than the $4K they are adding. OTOH you can pretty much expect them to try both, tacking on 'fees' and then trying to add interest if the fees are not paid. Another source of assistance may be the Department of Education Ombudsman: If you need help with a defaulted student loan, contact the Department of Education's Ombudsman at 877-557-2575 or visit its website at www.fsahelp.ed.gov. But first you must take steps to resolve your loan problem on your own (there is a checklist of required steps on the website), or the Ombudsman will not assist you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3121714aeaca7949b76e994e04bab77", "text": "\"I don't think the article is accurate. From https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/default#consequences Your student loan debt will increase because of the late fees, additional interest, court costs, collection fees, attorney’s fees, and any other costs associated with the collection process. Most stories of collection agencies having a debt start with \"\"I owed $2000\"\" and the collection agency says \"\"It's now $4000\"\" due to interest, late fees, collection fees, etc.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4806432231f19496e6b52cb6319b38f3", "text": "As someone with a lot of student loan debt, I can relate - the first thing you should do is read the promissory note on your current loans - there might be information there you can use. For govt loans (stafford, etc) made after July 1, 2006 the interest rate is going to be fixed and even a federal direct consolidation is not going to lower the rates themselves. If anything, consolidation will just increase the repayment period, which means you'll end up paying more in the long run. Most private Loans usually offer variable interest rates, which today are quite low. But unless your financial situation is very comfortable and stable, consolidating out of federally guaranteed loans into private loans might not be the best path. You might lose options like deferment, forbearance, and maybe even things like a death benefit (if you die, your loans die with you). related - if you have a co-signer you don't get that death benefit! But refinancing into a variable rate private loan is going to push a lot of risk to you in terms of interest rate inflation, etc. Most financial professionals will agree that interest rates can only go up in the long run. Keep in mind, student loans are completely unsecured - meaning lenders are taking a fairly large risk in loaning money (and probably why the fed govt has to guarantee most of them). I've heard of people borrowing against their home equity to pay down student loan debt - but I can't think of a reason you'd want to substitute secured for unsecured debt and possibly lose the loan interest tax deduction. The bottom line is you're unlikely to find an alternative lending source at a lower interest rate for an unsecured student loan. Another option may be the income based repayment plan. If you qualify, it caps student loan monthly payments at 15% of your discretionary income (discretionary is your income minus whatever the poverty threshold income amount is). And if that 15% doesn't even cover the interest on the loans, the govt picks up the tab for the difference (for up to 3 years). You have to re-qualify every year by sending in all sorts of documentation, but if you somehow stay on IBR for 25 years, your loans are then forgiven. Obviously the downside here is that you are probably paying little to no principal, but if you do the math and determine that your IBR payment would be next to nothing, and your current situation is barely paying interest-only... well, maybe IBR isn't a bad thing for a couple of years (or 25 if you think you will never have a larger income). Personally, I went through all these options as well and decided that my best option was to just earn more money... a 2nd job or side project here and there helps me pay down the debt faster, and with less risk, than moving to private variable rate loans.", "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": "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": "41bfce6ad28cda087090b8f58cb940bf", "text": "At the current rates, stated in the question, I would push additional funds towards your Stafford loans as their higher interest rates will incur interest charges almost 3 times faster than your private loans. With my loans I have not seen much information regarding private loans jumping the interest rate close to the 6.8% any time in the coming years (if others have insight to this I look forward to the comments). Due to the private loans being variable there is an element of risk to their rates increasing. Another way to look at it may be to prorate your amount of extra payments according to their interest rate. $1,000 x 0.068 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $731.18 Toward your Stafford Loans $1,000 x 0.025 /(0.068 + 0.025) = $268.82 Toward your Private Loans", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4cbc08ca586bb6481b02839029c3f7d0", "text": "What you are looking here is the cost of capital, because that is what you are effectively giving up in order to invest in those loans. In a discounted cash-flow, it would be the i in the denominator (1+i). For instance, instead of purchasing those loans you could have lent your money at the risk-free rate (not 100% true, but typical assumption), and therefore you are taking a slight risk in those loans for a higher return. There are several ways to compute that number, the one most often used would be the rate if the bank were to lend that money. In this way, it would be the Fed Funds rate plus some additional risk premium.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4bd07322012f097a21bf63a11cc85067", "text": "Since the compounding period and payment period differs (Compounded Daily vs Paid Monthly), you need to find the effective interest rate for one payment period (month). This means that each month you pay 0.33387092772% of the outstanding principal as interest. Then use this formula to find the number of months: Where PV = 21750, Pmt = 220, i = 0.0033387092772 That gives 120 Months. Depending on the day count convention, (30/360 or 30.416/365 or Actual/Actual), the answer may differ slightly. Using Financial Calculator gives extremely similar answer. The total cash paid in the entire course of the loan is 120 x $220 = $26,400", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2e959870c0aeb1d4a8e82a765275f23b", "text": "Hi guys, I have a difficult university finance question that’s really been stressing me out.... “The amount borrowed is $300 million and the term of the debt credit facility is six years from today The facility requires minimum loan repayments of $9 million in each financial year except for the first year. The nominal rate for this form of debt is 5%. This intestest rate is compounded monthly and is fixed from the date the facility was initiated. Assume that a debt repayment of $10 million is payed on 31 August 2018 and $9million on April 30 2019. Following on monthly repayments of $9 million at the end of each month from May 31 2019 to June 30 2021. Given this information determine the outstanding value of the debt credit facility on the maturity date.” Can anyone help me out with the answer? I’ve been wracking my brain trying to decide if I treat it as a bond or a bill. Thanks in advance,", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8210f915aa98e3c6bc75ca4b43f97d51", "text": "\"The first loan looks like it did not have its interest subsidized while you were in school, so interest was accruing eventhough you didn't have to start making payments on it yet. With the $73 payment you made, the bank is allocating the funds in a pre-determined split that is in their best interest - NOT yours! While you do need to pay them down (and eventually off), at the current rate it will take ~169 months (with no more interest accruing) to do so. Most likely, with interest continuing to accrue, you're looking more in the neighborhood of 17 years, rather than 14 (these are back-of-the-envelope numbers). The payoff balance listed is the current principle plus interest that will accrue before the next processing date - so it is usually a little higher than the \"\"actual\"\" balance, because the interest is accruing daily (albeit in very small percentages (1/365 of the loan's percentage)).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8125e139939bdcfbcaeb83f843bb2452", "text": "employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would. Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes. The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you. Avoid taking financial advice from that person.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d34c21a2d3c48e716c0f7c03fbe1e8d", "text": "\"There are several ways you can get out of paying your student loans back in the USA: You become disabled and the loan is dismissed once verified by treating doctor or the Social Security Administration. You become a peace officer. You become a teacher; generally K-12, but I have heard from the DOE that teachers at state schools qualify as well. So the \"\"malicious\"\" friend B is prescribing to the theory that if one of those conditions becomes true, friend A will not have to pay back the loan. The longer you drag it out, the more chance you have to fulfill a condition. Given that 2 of these methods require a commitment, my guess is that they are thinking more along the lines of the first one, which is horrible. Financially, it makes no sense to delay paying back your loans because deferred loans are only interest-free until you graduate and are past your grace period, after which they will begin accruing interest. Unsubsidized loans accrue interest from the day you get them, only their payback is deferred until you graduate and exhaust your grace period. Anytime you ask for forbearance, you are still accruing interest and it is capitalizing into your principal — you are just given a chance to delay payback due to financial hardship, bad health, or loss of job. Therefore, at no point are you benefiting beyond the time you are in school and getting an education, still looking for a job, or dealing with health issues. In the current market, no CD, no savings account, and no investment will give you substantially more return that will offset the loss of the interest you are accruing. Even those of us in the old days getting 4.X % rates would not do this. There was a conditional consolidation offer the DOE allowed which could bring all your loans under one roof for a competitive 5.x-6.x % rate allowing you a single payment, but even then you would benefit if you had rates that were substantially higher. From a credit worthiness aspect, you are hurt by the outstanding obligation and any default along the way, so you really want to avoid that — paying off or down your loans are a good way to ensure you don't shoot yourself in the foot.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e154e53b3c2b81436954861013025ec7", "text": "I was in a very similar place 10 years ago. I was in my mid 20's with 45K in combined school + personal/business related debt and working in IT for not very much. I already had 10-15K in debt when my college loans first came due and it was the first time I really had to come to terms with the hole I had dug myself and I spent weeks at a time obsessing over plans that would help me get out of debt. It effected my health and my relationships. I felt like I was never going to come out from under it. My family was very much lower middle class (<30K household income) and I wasn't going to get or expect any help there so I went to work and made it a point to make sure every personal and professional decision I made was conducive to my long term goals and before I knew it they became short term goals. Find out what your basic monthly need is, be brutally honest, cut back on things like cable tv ( I still don't have it ), reduce your phone plans, borrow things when you don't have to buy them and send that money to your debt. Pick up some hobbies that don't cost much. These are all minor sacrifices. I got back in to playing the piano and spent a lot of time at the beach in the summer and caching up on books I'd always meant to read in the winter. I ran a lot of numbers in a spreadsheet but you can play with the numbers with online loan calculators to put some real numbers behind your goals. Here is one that I just tried out http://loan.bizcalcs.com/Calculator.asp?Calc=Loan-Early-Payoff You'll probably be surprised how much effect a little bit of extra towards a loan can make in the long term. Put your current college loan details in to it and then see what the effect of an extra 150 a month is. I know you've implied that you really don't have anything extra each month and that is fine. Figure out an amount that gets you moving towards your goals and then start working on a way to make it. Figuring out how to make or squeeze an extra n dollars out of your budget every 30 days is much less daunting than thinking about paying off 50K. You said you are working in IT, I don't know where you live but in my city there are lots of decent IT related jobs. Your first goal might need to be to find a better one. If possible move around balances until you've got interest rates you can deal with and now that you have solid numbers to plan with consider the effect of making smaller goals. Would you feel as bad if you had half as much debt? How about if you got rid of 10K of debt? Or just your credit cards? I know I felt a huge relief when I cut my overall debt in half. It felt like a huge part of my burden had lifted, and it had. I could start seeing the end of the tunnel. I think that one of the biggest changes in my life since then has been the way I look at and think about money and debt. I didn't really have to sacrifice much. I learned to travel cheaply and whenever I met a goal I'd reward myself with a small trip. Today I have a very low mortgage payment and I pay my full credit balances each month so I have no revolving bad debt. I wish you luck and I know exactly where you are standing right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b412db2f9e730b019a3093a7661e7ac", "text": "The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "649e4f4a2629f2a78a55ed10220deb0d", "text": "Hola, I am a nontraditional student, meaning I am in my 30's. I was laid off in 2009 because of the economy and was encouraged by the unemployment agency to goto school AND get student loans. Now I am completeley screwed!!! Are any of you out there screwed because of student loans? AMA!", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
54547b9263fb541c7b3030fb1205ef80	U.S. Mutual Fund Supermarkets: Where are some good places to buy mutual funds?	[ { "docid": "f238a39c1647a151a0184a59ce1b787b", "text": "There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "21644dc58ac157d153254c1422b6763b", "text": "I personally like Schwab. Great service, low fees, wide variety of fund are available at no fee. TD Ameritrade is good too.", "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": "986483aca79fc08b760992585b15ae69", "text": "Only select items. First - I agree, beware the Goldfish Factor - any of those items may very well lead to greater consumption, which will impact your waistline worse than your bottom line. And, in this category, chips, and snacks in general, you'll typically get twice the size bag for the same price as supermarket. For a large family, this might work ok. If one is interested in saving on grocery items, the very first step is to get familiar with the unit cost (often cents per ounce) of most items you buy. Warehouse store or not, this knowledge will make you a better buyer. In general, the papergoods/toiletries are cheaper than at the store but not as cheap as the big sale/coupon cost at the supermarket or pharmacy (CVS/RiteAid). So if you pay attention you may always be stocked up from other sources. All that said, there are many items that easily cover our membership cost (for Costco). The meat, beef tenderloin, $8.99, I can pay up to $18 at the supermarket or butcher. Big shrimp (12 to the lb), $9.50/lb, easily $15 at fish dept. Funny, I buy the carrots JCarter mentioned. They are less than half supermarket price per lb, so I am ahead if we throw out the last 1/4 of the bag. More often than not, it's used up 100%. Truth is, everyone will have a different experience at these stores. Costco will refund membership up to the very end, so why not try it, and see if the visit is worth it? Last year, I read and wrote a review of a book titled The Paradox of Choice. The book's premise was the diminishing return that come with too many things to choose from. In my review, I observed how a benefit of Costco is the lack of choice, there's one or two brands for most items, not dozens. If you give this a bit of thought, it's actually a benefit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8a1eeb8bc084a1d378814a548ab4109a", "text": "Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).", "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": "400096cd7cdb26e02bedf06d01964a30", "text": "I have a Whole Foods, Walmart, 3x Kroger, 2x Publix, Traders Joes, Spruce's, and a Fresh Market within 10 minutes of driving. I've actually started focusing on Walmart more and more because they simply have better prices on the stuff I buy most. I might wander into Whole Wallet for some of their loss leaders but I don't think I'll move the bulk of my grocery purchases away from Walmart / Kroger.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "78324133f5ee24f7ae0dc6de65f65c25", "text": "I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "828ffbb47abfeeaadc410c2ed880e123", "text": "Re #2, consider an account at a credit union rather than a bank or brokerage firm. Whether you choose a savings account or a money market account, you're likely to get an account with lower fees (so it doesn't cost you money), and rates that are typically similar.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a862de5d9274e3bc9659e843f7763700", "text": "Thanks for sharing, interesting piece. I find the best opportunities to buy are watching the downtrends on oversold stocks. For example, recently with Amazon's buyout of Whole Foods, groceries took a big hit. Kroger took the biggest hit of all, falling nearly 30% from its 50 day moving average of $30/share. So I bought some at 21.50 and will just sit on it for a couple months. I find put buying on the upward swings to still be risky in this market, but on the downtrend it easy to spot oversold equities that will trend back up over time because of solid fundamentals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "694d61038875d217fb33e9c503362398", "text": "I know quite a few mutual fund wholesalers making over a mil right here in the states. Having said that, none of them are at Fido. Fidelity is a private firm but having started my career there, I wouldn't be surprised if they're paying a few people that much who have been there forever. They also extend extremely cheap credit to employees at the MD role and above, at least that was the case when I was there.", "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": "9035e3042845744753020ebe12989ddf", "text": "I can't provide a list, but when I took out my Stocks and Shares, I extensively researched for a good, cheap, flexible option and I went with FoolShareDealing. I've found them to be good, and their online trading system works well. I hope that's still the case.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2b0f50c6befa43aa0f99833600320dd9", "text": "\"First, you don't state where you are and this is a rather global site. There are people from Canada, US, and many other countries here so \"\"mutual funds\"\" that mean one thing to you may be a bit different for someone in a foreign country for one point. Thanks for stating that point in a tag. Second, mutual funds are merely a type of investment vehicle, there is something to be said for what is in the fund which could be an investment company, trust or a few other possibilities. Within North America there are money market mutual funds, bond mutual funds, stock mutual funds, mutual funds of other mutual funds and funds that are a combination of any and all of the former choices. Thus, something like a money market mutual fund would be low risk but quite likely low return as well. Short-term bond funds would bring up the risk a tick though this depends on how you handle the volatility of the fund's NAV changing. There is also something to be said for open-end, ETF and closed-end funds that are a few types to consider as well. Third, taxes are something not even mentioned here which could impact which kinds of funds make sense as some funds may invest in instruments with favorable tax-treatment. Aside from funds, I'd look at CDs and Treasuries would be my suggestion. With a rather short time frame, stocks could be quite dangerous to my mind. I'd only suggest stocks if you are investing for at least 5 years. In 2 years there is a lot that can happen with stocks where if you look at history there was a record of stocks going down about 1 in every 4 years on average. Something to consider is what kind of downside would you accept here? Are you OK if what you save gets cut in half? This is what can happen with some growth funds in the short-term which is what a 2 year time horizon looks like. If you do with a stock mutual fund, it would be a gamble to my mind. Don't forget that if the fund goes down 10% and then comes up 10%, you're still down 1% since the down will take more.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93272704c3255f614b4bc281253cb3a1", "text": "The Telegraph had an interesting article recently going back 30 years for Mutual's in the UK that had beaten the market and trackers for both IT and UT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/11489789/The-funds-that-have-returned-more-than-12pc-per-year-for-THIRTY-years.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f6e457bc0961eaecb0ef786a8cbb3225", "text": "Are there examples? Seems region and state located stores are very much thriving with no plan of a buyout. They've been around for 30+ years. I hope that quote is wrong because food companies who respond to millions of people requesting higher profits each quarter isn't good for the customer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2933c48c4708a2ad6e4a280295b127d2", "text": "Selftrade does list them. Not sure if you'll be able to sign up from the US though, particularly given the FATCA issues.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
13a7d6c476f9bbc3243633f092311efa	What steps should be taken, if any, when you find out your home's market value is underwater, i.e. worth less than the mortgage owed?	[ { "docid": "c9362cd4c4dfd4c31b93d8e745b08a7c", "text": "\"Do you still enjoy living in your home? Can you afford the mortgage payments? Is there a reason for you to move, such as a relocation for work, or your third kid is on the way and your current house is already crowded with two? Those questions are more important than \"\"Is my home worth more than what I owe on it\"\". Ultimately, it's your home. You probably chose it for more than just its price, and those qualities should still make it valuable to you in some way beyond the monetary value which goes up and down with the market. You have a few options:\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a5b0fda3213b02f5c6f2aeba19e827fa", "text": "That's easy, keep making the payments and go on with life. The number that matters more than loan/market value is loan/equity. As long as you can sell it for enough to pay the balance on your loan you should be okay. Not saying it doesn't suck, but financially you are fine. If you owe more than the house is worth, I'd suggest paying it down as quickly as possible to fix that ratio to reduce your financial risk in case you lose your source of income. Personally, I think it is pretty slimy for people to walk away from house notes or try to short sell them when they can afford to continue payments just because the market value of the house fell. How would you feel if, when house prices were skyrocketing, the bank canceled your loan and repossessed your house because they could resell it for more money? (not that they could realistically, just speaking hypothetically.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb3d2f9d271b82b2e51e476bf192362f", "text": "\"I will echo the others; your home should be worth more to you than its market value. It is YOUR HOME. It's where you come home every day to your wife and kids, where you build a life. Yes it's an investment, but it's not like a stock or bond that you hold for a little while and then cash out for the profit. The one time you should be worried about being \"\"upside-down\"\" on your mortgage is if you're getting out. If you're moving to a new job at a new company in a new city, you have to make good on the remaining loan balance, and that won't all be from the sale of the house. Unless you're at that point however, if you can afford making the payments and have no reason to move or to cash in equity (of which you have none), then just keep making the payments. Hey, it's better than rent; you'll never see rent money again, while even if you're underwater, you're making headway with each payment.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8384d899eab2715121909c97bb28decf", "text": "Step back and take a deep breath. Pay your mortgage. repeat 1 and 2 monthly until equity > mortgage.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "808412bec57aad1937e45a0605c96802", "text": "You are weighting a certain cost of the mortgage interest versus the possible gain of the value of the house. Take the interest you pay per month and divide it by the current value of the house. Say your interest is 3% of the value of the house (may be more or less depending on the balance owed and the interest rate of your mortgage). Say the average appreciation in your area is also 3%. But that means that there's only a 50% chance that the actual appreciation will be more than that (assuming the odds are equal either way), and there's a 50% change that you'll be worse off. Generally, trading a risk-free loss for a risky gain of equal size is not a good investment; you generally can find better average returns on risky investments, so your best bet is to sell now and pay of the mortgage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "57a7e001107705c229929c34469f426f", "text": "It's just possible that if you have your home appraised (probable cost a few hundred $), and the value is sufficiently higher than what the mortgage company is owed, that they will let this slide, since they are covered. Many banks, at least, allow secured lines of credit against the equity in your home, and allow the amount of the loan to increase if/as the value of the property goes up and your equity increases. However, I'd run this by the mortgage company before investing in the appraisal, since they may not be as flexible this way as the banks I've dealt with, and in any case it's a gamble unless you are certain of the value of your property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "26fe51a5cce3f558975a4af6b421c388", "text": "It's the physiological impact it has. If you took a loan to buy a home for $500k and you recently had it appraised for $450k you are more inclined to skip out on any home remodeling projects. Also as ShakeyBobWillis pointed out it can be to your financial benefit to just walk away from an underwater mortgage. This creates even more glut in the marketplace.", "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": "" }, { "docid": "5c6a870d896ba0f0ddafe2dbe1357b2f", "text": "Banks don't want to manage property. They despise the fact that they have all of these foreclosures that they can't sell. They just want to loan you the money at X% and collect the fees and interest. The value of a reverse mortgage to the lender is that it's a collateralized loan against a property. When the owner exits the property, it's attached to the property and must be paid back before the property is sold. They carefully consider the age of the recipient, equity in the property, etc. when they decide how much to pay the owner so that the chances of the loan going underwater are minimized.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "baa15753021d8703b48539871d120fcd", "text": "You're not responsible for the mortgages on the property - those are agreements between the lender and the borrower. The risk you have is that the title search missed something. If the seller (i.e., the bank or banks who foreclosed) did not have full rights to sell the property, and there was another party who had a lien on the property or had an interest in it in some fashion, that party could make a claim that would interfere with your purchase. You wouldn't be responsible for the loan, but you might not end up with the title to the property if that happened.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0c0c3446e19d6e35503c42d6919e8063", "text": "Simply if your stock is still rising in price keep it. If it is falling in price sell it and pay off your mortgage. To know when to do this is very easy. If it is currently rising you can put a trailing stop loss on it and sell it when it drops and hits your stop loss. A second easy method is to draw an uptrend line under the increasing price and then sell when the price drops down below the uptrend line, as per the chart below. This will enable you to capture the bulk of the price movement upward and sell before the price drops too far down. You can then use the profits (after tax) to pay down your mortgage. Of course if the price is currently in a downtrend sell it ASAP.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dcaa9bc3f2c813ff10968355fceac9fb", "text": "Dan - there are other choices. What rate do you have on this mortgage? And what is the value of the home? With a bit of patience and effort, you may be able to lower your rate and save some portion of that $100k you think you can grab. There is no factual answer here. The negative will show for 7 years, and only you can determine whether that's worth it. If in that time the value comes back you may very well be in a worse position, looking to buy a new home that's now well above where it is today. It's possible the current prices are overshooting on the downside, if unemployment drops and consumer confidence returns, you may be back to break-even sooner than you think. As an aside, I find it curious that the Trumps of this world can manipulate the system, creating multiple entities, filing for bankruptcy, yet protecting his own assets, and his wealth is applauded. Yet, asking the question here so many attack you, verbally. The Donald has saved himself billions through his dealings, I don't judge you for asking this question when it comes to $100k. When Trump's net worth was negative, he should have had his property taken away, and been handed a broom.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "318b176230b8586dd9fc2cab38336566", "text": "tl;dr: when everything is going great, it's not really a problem. It's when things change that it's a problem. Finally, home loans are extended over extremely long periods (i.e. 15 or 30 years), making any fluctuations in their value short-lived - even less reason to be obsessed over their current value relative to the loan. Your post is based on the assumption that you never move. In that case, you are correct - being underwater on a mortgage is not a problem. The market value of your house matters little, except if you sell it or it gets reassessed. The primary problem arises if you want to sell. There are a variety of reasons you might be required to move: In all of these scenarios it is a major problem if you cannot sell. Your options generally are: In the first option, you will destroy your credit. This may or may not be a problem. The second is a major inconvenience. The third is ideal, but often people in this situation have money related problems. Student loans can deferred if needed. Mortgages cannot. A car is more likely to be a lower payment as well as a lower amount underwater. Generally, the problem comes when people buy a mortgage assuming certain things - whether that's appreciation, income stability/growth, etc. When these change they run into these problems and that is exactly a moment where being underwater is a problem.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93a5d77409254fa60210ce84930525a", "text": "\"The first red-flag here is that an appraisal was not performed on an as-is basis - and if it could not be done, you should be told why. Getting an appraisal on an after-improvement basis only makes sense if you are proposing to perform such improvements and want that factored in as a basis of the loan. It seems very bizarre to me that a mortgage lender would do this without any explanation at all. The only way this makes sense is if the lender is only offering you a loan with specific underwriting guidelines on house quality (common with for instance VA-loans and how they require the roof be of a certain maximum age - among dozens of other requirements, and many loan products have their own standards). This should have been disclosed to you during the process, but one can certainly never assume anyone will do their job properly - or it may have only mentioned in some small print as part of pounds of paper products you may have been offered or made to sign already. The bank criteria is \"\"reasonable\"\" to the extent that generally mortgage companies are allowed to set underwriting criteria about the current condition of the house. It doesn't need to be reasonable to you personally, or any of us - it's to protect lender profits by aiding their risk models. Your plans and preferences don't even factor in to their guidelines. Not all criteria are on a a sliding scale, so it doesn't necessarily matter how well you meet their other standards. You are of course correct that paying for thousands of dollars in improvements on a house you don't own is lunacy, and the fact that this was suggested may on it's own suggest you should cut your losses now and seek out a different lender. Given the lender being uncooperative, the only reason to stick with it seems to be the sunk cost of the appraisal you've already paid for. I'd suggest you specifically ask them why they did not perform an as-is appraisal, and listen to the answer (if you can get one). You can try to contact the appraiser directly as well with this question, and ask if you can have the appraisal strictly as-is without having a new appraisal. They might be helpful, they might not. As for taking the appraisal with you to a new bank, you might be able to do this - or you might not. It is strictly up to each lender to set criteria for appraisals they accept, but I've certainly known of people re-using an appraisal done sufficiently recently in this way. It's a possibility that you will need to write off the $800 as an \"\"education expense\"\", but it's certainly worth trying to see if you can salvage it and take it with you - you'll just have to ask each potential lender, as I've heard it go both ways. It's not a crazy or super-rare request - lenders backing out based on appraisal results should be absolutely normal to anyone in the finance business. To do this, you can just state plainly the situation. You paid for an appraisal and the previous lender fell through, and so you would like to know if they would be able to accept that and provide you with a loan without having to buy a whole new appraisal. This would also be a good time to talk about condition requirements, in that you want a loan on an as-is basic for a house that is inhabitable but needs cosmetic repair, and you plan to do this in cash on your own time after the purchase closes. Some lenders will be happy to do this at below 75%-80% LTV, and some absolutely do not want to make this type of loan because the house isn't in perfect condition and that's just what their lending criteria is right now. Based on description alone, I don't think you really should need to go into alternate plans like buy cash and then get a home equity loan to get cash out, special rehab packages, etc. So I'd encourage you to try a more straight-forward option of a different lender, as well as trying to get a straight answer on their odd choice of appraisal order that you paid for, before trying anything more exotic or totally changing your purchase/finance plans.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b1e85d77351e39748acab3932a4c949f", "text": "I wish this was the case in Canada. I lost about 60k on my home in one year and have to sell now to move for work. In the US I could simply default and the bank takes the loss. In Canada if I default, CMHC pays the bank, then I'm sued by CMHC and stuck with the bad debt. Simply put - here the onus of repayment is on the lender, not the lending institution. It sounds good until you are the one looking at losing your shirt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86947b27e63b44e8de27c9d930ccea82", "text": "\"Time for a lawyer. Essentially, regardless of the situation \"\"it's not right\"\" for him to be paying the mortgage and only get half the value out of the equity in the house. All other things aside, no court I can think of would allow that. The \"\"could happens\"\" are many, but the most common include; Keep in mind that if he keeps paying the mortgage ling enough most courts will end up giving him ownership outright. Essentially, they will say he has already bought her out by paying her half of the debt. Unfortunately, any way he goes he is going to need to take action. When there is a missed mortgage payment, a bad tax year, or some other legal issue (some one is injured on the property), the last thing he is going to want is for the courts to decide the issue for him. For example, John breaks an arm while climbing a tree on the property line. John takes the owners of the property to court. \"\"He\"\" says \"\"but my sister owns half\"\" and the courts decide then and there that because he's been paying the mortgage alone he owns the house alone. Seems like a win, except now he owns the liability alone, and owns John $1,000,000 for a silly lawsuit alone. Point is this. Ownership of property comes with risks and responsibilities. \"\"He\"\" really needs to get those risks and responsibilities under control so he can mitigate them, or he could end up in a very nasty situation in the years to come.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9af55094839c6d10fccdf320dad52f9c", "text": "Another vote for a bigger downpayment, for the reasons Benjamin mentions. Also, from experience, I would save up at least a small pile as a separate house emergency fund because you will find things that are wrong and/or that got bodged by the previous owner and it's probably not going to last past the first few months of home ownership. In my case, the home inspector missed - amongst other things - that the shower on the 2nd floor was leaking both into the adjoining bedroom and the living room below. That added a little unexpected expenditure as you might guess.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "92a9348b7c9112141fbead1b596fd9c5", "text": "It really is a stupid term. What comes to mind with the term underwater? drowning, sunk boats, cars and other property and flooding. All really stressful and damaging. Underwater in mortgages, means you owe more than your house is worth, .... ER your home's value dropped below the value of your mortgage. It does suck but it doesnt mean they are behind on their mortgage and doesnt suck as much as people who are behind. it isnt really something to worry about except for the future when you resell. For a lot of people it is just something they can ignore. In theory, they should get a lower tax bill. Underwater just seems like an odd term for something like your home value dropping below the price your paid for it. If you buy a new car, you can pretty much claim to be underwater as you drive it off the lot, because your car simply isnt worth what you paid for it the second it becomes used. not saying it isnt an interesting stat, or that it is of no concern, it's just an odd term. To me it is more fitting for people behind in their payments than for people whose property lost value. (and yeah i get it is more dire for investors and somewhat for landlords but not always)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e7e9ad9c1f285911844b593c4fba6f05", "text": "If you truly have > 22% equity, they have to stop it. However, without an appraisal, how do you know if you have > 22% equity? If you bought the house for 100k, and paid your mortgage down to 78k, but now the house is only worth 78k, you have 0% equity, not 22% equity. Without an appraisal, you have no idea how much equity you have. Yeah, it sucks, but that's how equity is calculated: based on the current value, not the past value.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a4ef8304913574e475eec7bcb1a2699e	Can I request to change 401k offerings from my employer, e.g. to invest in ETFs?	[ { "docid": "a93de0c47ea465ff6df525d0abc886ad", "text": "The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db316dfa5e719b5a08e34a547ebdc03d", "text": "See if any of the funds they offer are index funds, which will generally have MUCH lower fees and which seem to perform as well as any of the actively managed funds in the same categories.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "6608c171e52d13e656ec481fa3992ba5", "text": "The investments offered in 401K are usually limited to a selection of mutual funds offered by a 401K provider. The 401K providers and the mutual funds charge fees. The mutual fund industry has a lobbying group that will push for increased 401K contributions to direct money into their mutual funds to collect fees. The top 401 K provider in 2005 was fidelity. It managed $337 billion in 401Ks of which $334 billion was directed into mutual funds. Although I would have to use some of the same providers to open an IRA, I would not have to invest in the providers' mutual funds when I open an IRA. I can buy a stock and hold onto it for 10, 20, 50 years inside of my IRA. Thus, the only fee the investment company would collect from me would be from when I purchased the stock and when I sold the stock. Not nearly as profitable as mutual fund fees.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "07f26b9da21f8c70c4170e7b76ff7a17", "text": "This is called an in-plan Roth conversion and is discussed by the IRS here. If your 401(k) has a Roth option then it likely also has a provision to convert pre-tax dollars, but you'll have to check with the administrator to be sure. They could also potentially limit the type of money that can be converted. But most likely you should be able to convert any amount you want, and since it's all pre-tax (your contributions, employer matching, and earnings), it doesn't really matter which money is converted because it's all equivalent. One caveat is you won't able to convert any employer matching that hasn't fully vested.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ad33eac31a9f04e5ed16e601158c497", "text": "Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees? Regarding the 401K funds from the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "048dbe98016d45e8ce3e54b597459f48", "text": "\"As long as you're willing to pay the taxes and the penalties, once you're no longer employed you're allowed to do whatever you want. You can always do an \"\"direct roll-over\"\" (See IRC Sec. 401(a)(31)(A) which mandates this) and then withdraw from another qualified account, thus creating a withdrawal, if they refuse to just mail you a check (Why would they care? Don't know). The match may have some vesting restrictions, though. Your own contributions - are yours to do with whatever you feel like. That said, just pointing out the obvious - it's a very bad idea. Unless you expect to die before you're 60 and don't want to leave a dime to your heirs, you would probably be better off leaving it in a tax-sheltered account. If the custodian is bad - just roll over elsewhere, there's tons of excellent IRA providers.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "06bd58b2c04fbaff9f394a63ee0d1455", "text": "AFAIK, individual 401k accounts are supposed to be funded from self-employment earnings, not from rollovers from 401k plans of previous employers. So, check with your accountant before making opening an individual 401k account and getting your previous 401k plan to re-issue the checks to be payable to your individual 401k account. You might also want to ask about whether loans are permitted from individual 401k accounts (my guess is they are not because the possibility of abuse of the privilege is too high since the employer and employee are the same individual). In any case, loans against 401k plans are generally not a good idea, and many people on this forum have blogged about this matter.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "54c8b95482efb17d27bb5df4bdffc267", "text": "My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "13d3ff4d6b707032209f25ea78e8e020", "text": "Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93a0b8695c9a5a04a43380ef2899b658", "text": "You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e0f4949caa285e9a88aed4baa6e1ff8", "text": "One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "20ec0911ab39c1fa1e63136f80b996c9", "text": "If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "278d1c95cec44d00360de826f5d0e26e", "text": "You cannot withdraw funds from a 401(k) while still employed with your company. To access your contributions, that would be treated as a loan against the 401(k), in which case you'd pay an upfront fee, and then have to repay the amount loaned, plus interest, over a set period of time. (In essence, you are paying back yourself.) Typically, there is also a minimum amount you must take out as a loan. Should you leave the job and still have an outstanding loan against your 401(k), it will be treated as a withdrawal after a certain date, at which point a 10% penalty plus taxes applies, unless you pay back the full amount of the loan remaining before that certain date. Your friends should seriously consider contributing the minimum amount necessary to get that full 50% matching amount. It's free money. As you said, it's like leaving money on the table.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a67a6ab7b645e0b531b9bf3203845161", "text": "\"You might consider working on getting your new employer to sponsor a 401k, there may be options where you can invest and they aren't required to add anything as a match (which gives you higher limits). If they don't match, they may just be liable for some administration fees. If you have any side business that you do, you might also be eligible for other \"\"self-employed\"\" options that have higher limits (SEP, Simple - I think they may go up to $15k) although, I'm not sure the nitty gritties of them.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67d8c5baa9f2fc5cdcb7e4d8ff982046", "text": "No that is not a rollover. Many employees have experienced a change of management companies. Sometimes these switches are due to a merger, an acquisition, or just to save money. It is understandable that the old employer would like to see you transfer your funds to either your new employer, or roll them over into a IRA/Roth IRA. So it is not unexpected that they will take this opportunity to nudge you. The thing that congress was trying to prevent were serial rollovers of IRAs. These people would use the 60 day window to have in essence a loan. Some would do this multiple times a year; always making sure they replaced the money in time. The IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. Direct transfers of IRA money are not limited This change won’t affect your ability to transfer funds from one IRA trustee directly to another, because this type of transfer isn’t a rollover (Revenue Ruling 78-406, 1978-2 C.B. 157). The one-rollover-per-year rule of Internal Revenue Code Section 408(d)(3)(B) applies only to rollovers. Note that the law doesn't mention 401K/403B or the federal TSP. When the 401K changes management companies that is not a rollover.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b36177c86a000963a421bfef2ab82829", "text": "I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0535f4b09f6aa7e67feb4ec676bbf52c", "text": "Would anything happen if you bring this issue to the attention of the HR department? Everyone in the company who participates in the 401(k) is affected, so you'd think they'd all be interested in switching to a another 401k provider that will make them more money.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
5dfff5fac397672186a3876f78e6b42d	Virtual currency investment	[ { "docid": "685f5af46c704157e62049b3b1eace69", "text": "I don't know much about paypal or bitcoin, but I can provide a little information on BTC(Paypal I thought was just a service for moving real currency). BTC has an exchange, in which the price of a bitcoin goes up and down. You can invest in to it much like you would invest in the stock market. You can also invest in equipment to mine bitcoins, if you feel like that is worthwhile. It takes quite a bit of research and quite a bit of knowledge. If you are looking to provide loans with interest, I would look into P2P lending. Depending on where you live, you can buy portions of loans, and receive monthly payments with the similiar risk that credit card companies take on(Unsecured debt that can be cleared in bankruptcy). I've thrown a small investment into P2P lending and it has had average returns, although I don't feel like my investment strategy was optimal(took on too many high risk notes, a large portion of which defaulted). I've been doing it for about 8 months, and I've seen an APY of roughly 9%, which again I think is sub-optimal. I think with better investment strategy you could see closer to 12-15%, which could swing heavily with economic downturn. It's hard to say.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "ff2a2e28dcef5b4943d13de9f71cf09e", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.bitcoin.com/britain-largest-broker-exchange-traded-bitcoin-investments/) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) *** > On Thursday, June 1, two bitcoin investments were added to Hargreaves Lansdown&#039;s platform; Bitcoin Tracker One and Bitcoin Tracker Eur. > The foreign exchange rate risk for Bitcoin Tracker One is USD/SEK whereas it is USD/EUR for Bitcoin Tracker Eur. > While the certificates are denominated in SEK and EUR, they track the price of bitcoin in USD. &quot;As the BTC/USD market is the most liquid bitcoin market widely available for trading, we regard it as the most suitable underlying asset in a bitcoin product,&quot; the company explained. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ewbj3/britains_largest_broker_offers_exchangetraded/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135054 tl;drs so far.\"\") \| [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) \| [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") \| Top* keywords: bitcoin^#1 accounts^#2 Hargreaves^#3 Lansdown^#4 track^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "500aba91d79281094dbadba775df5b7a", "text": "I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "45c3cb28491d6b35f3219f442d3100a6", "text": "\"These have the potential to become \"\"end-of-the-world\"\" scenarios, so I'll keep this very clear. If you start to feel that any particular investment may suddenly become worthless then it is wise to liquidate that asset and transfer your wealth somewhere else. If your wealth happens to be invested in cash then transferring that wealth into something else is still valid. Digging a hole in the ground isn't useful and running for the border probably won't be necessary. Consider countries that have suffered actual currency collapse and debt default. Take Zimbabwe, for example. Even as inflation went into the millions of percent, the Zimbabwe stock exchange soared as investors were prepared to spend ever-more of their devaluing currency to buy stable stocks in a small number of locally listed companies. Even if the Euro were to suffer a critical fall, European companies would probably be ok. If you didn't panic and dig caches in the back garden over the fall of dotcom, there is no need to panic over the decline of certain currencies. Just diversify your risk and buy non-cash (or euro) assets. Update: A few ideas re diversification: The problem for Greece isn't really a euro problem; it is local. Local property, local companies ... these can be affected by default because no-one believes in the entirety of the Greek economy, not just the currency it happens to be using - so diversification really means buying things that are outside Greece.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c760adde250dd20b09e0e032b5bdd9d6", "text": "When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc1a531e3572ae0bf4d32e289fb386cd", "text": "Look at the tech used. Bitcoin a a very small numbers of others have their own blockchains. Nearly all other coins are build on Ethereum. Ethereum is like iOS for blockchain. One can build public or private versions. The fuel / transaction currency of the Ethereum playtform (think distributed operating system) is Ether (ETH) The Ethereum guys were very clever and got the biggest guys deploy involved multi nationals.. all of them have internal ethereum projects to capture their internal value distribution systems. But they ar already planning to manage their entire supply chains with this. Think: Com apt gets order via a distributed order system . These orders are legally binding. The bank of the producer Dan now issue a credit that flows through 10+ levels to suppliers and they will no longer be held up by week if not Knoth long PurchaseOrder processes. => these types of things is what the EEA is all about. At the same time Ethereum has much different transaction limits and has clear paths for increasing those limits in the future. Try transfer bitcoin right now :) The might be a lot of other coins coming but the question you should ask yourself: do you think there will there be a competitor to ethereum as general purpose blockchain platform in any near / mid term future. Keep in mind the already unreadably broad industry support. Depending on the answer to this ether is a great investment or just a good one. Either way :) Not saying other coins won't yield higher results but if you invest in the ether you invest in the currency the transactions of the others us calculated at. So in any case if you believe in coins there will be uptake on Ether.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0ee003abb9d3d266789513d9d7673856", "text": "\"Edit: I discovered Bitcoin a few months after I posted this answer. I would strongly recommend anyone interested in this question to review it, particularly the myths page that dispels much of the FUD. Original answer: Although it is not online, as a concept the Totnes Pound may be of interest to you. I live quite close to this village (in the UK) and the system it promotes does work well. According to the Transition Town Totnes website this means that it is \"\"a community in a process of imagining and creating a future that addresses the twin challenges of diminishing oil and gas supplies and climate change , and creates the kind of community that we would all want to be part of.\"\" If you are looking for a starting place to introduce a new type of currency, perhaps in response to over-dependence on oil and global trade, then reading about the Transition Towns initiative could provide you with the answers you're looking for.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f23a77c2c5432db5c7cf786f6e890560", "text": "I find this site to be really poor for the virtual play portion, especially the options league. After you place a trade, you can't tell what you actually traded. The columns for Exp and type are blank. I have had better luck with OptionsXpress virtual trader. Although they have recently changed their criteria for a non funded accounts and will only keep them active for 90 days. I know the cboe has a paper trading platform but I haven't tried it out yet.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a6a908e79622930b75bd84c3ed3768c8", "text": "Peer to peer lending such as Kiva, Lending Club, Funding Circle(small business), SoFi(student loans), Prosper, and various other services provide you with access to the 'basic form' of investing you described in your question. Other funds: You may find the documentary '97% Owned' fascinating as it provides an overview of the monetary system of England, with parallels to US, showing only 3% of money supply is used in exchange of goods and services, 97% is engaged in some form of speculation. If speculative activities are of concern, you may need to denounce many forms of currency. Lastly, be careful of taking the term addiction too lightly and deeming something unethical too quickly. You may be surprised to learn there are many people like yourself working at 'unethical' companies changing them within.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4bfed0d60b7aad95ded1939b5bb5c18", "text": "I like precious metals and real estate. For the OP's stated timeframe and the effects QE is having on precious metals, physical silver is not a recommended short term play. If you believe that silver prices will fall as QE is reduced, you may want to consider an ETF that shorts silver. As for real estate, there are a number of ways to generate profit within your time frame. These include: Purchase a rental property. If you can find something in the $120,000 range you can take a 20% mortgage, then refinance in 3 - 7 years and pull out the equity. If you truly do not need the cash to purchase your dream home, look for a rental property that pays all the bills plus a little bit for you and arrange a mortgage of 80%. Let your money earn money. When you are ready you can either keep the property as-is and let it generate income for you, or sell and put more than $100,000 into your dream home. Visit your local mortgage broker and ask if he does third-party or private lending. Ask about the process and if you feel comfortable with him, let him know you'd like to be a lender. He will then find deals and present them to you. You decide if you want to participate or not. Private lenders are sometimes used for bridge financing and the loan amortizations can be short (6 months - 5 years) and the rates can be significantly higher than regular bank mortgages. The caveat is that as a second-position mortgage, if the borrower goes bankrupt, you're not likely to get your principal back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fd9a98455fed7756d4b3f2fb56ea0aca", "text": "How long is a piece of string? This will depend on many variables. How many trades will you make in a day? What income would you be expecting to make? What expectancy do you need to achieve? Which markets you will choose to trade? Your first step should be to develop a Trading Plan, then develop your trading rules and your risk management. Then you should back test your strategy and then use a virtual account to practice losing on. Because one thing you will get is many losses. You have to learn to take a loss when the market moves against you. And you need to let your profits run and keep your losses small. A good book to start with is Trade Your Way to Financial Freedom by Van Tharp. It will teach you about Expectancy, Money Management, Risk Management and the Phycology of Trading. Two thing I can recommend are: 1) to look into position and trend trading and other types of short term trading instead of day trading. You would usually place your trades after market close together with your stops and avoid being in front of the screen all day trying to chase the market. You need to take your emotion out of your trading if you want to succeed; 2) don't trade penny stocks, trade commodities, FX or standard stocks, but keep away from penny stocks. Just because you can buy them for a penny does not mean they are cheap.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f595b075ccb746ad463a41920df329a2", "text": "\"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. But there's nothing illegal or nefarious about it, and while you might get some odd questions if a large deposit ends up in your bank account, as long as you answer them there really isn't a problem. If you don't have documentation of how much you paid for it, if it's a trivial amount compared to what it's worth now you can just declare $0 as your basis. I would suggest you try to have documentation that you've held it at least one year so that it's a long-term capital gain, but you can just mark the purchase date as \"\"Various\"\" on your tax form. I've done this (for a much smaller amount of bitcoins, alas) and haven't run into any trouble. While there are some good reasons to sell slowly, as others are saying, I want to play devil's advocate for a minute and give you a reason to sell quickly: A decision to hold is equivalent to a decision to buy. That is, if a million dollars randomly ended up in your bank account for no reason, you probably wouldn't choose to go put it all into bitcoin, and then slowly sell it. Yet that's more-or-less an equivalent financial situation to holding on to the bitcoin and slowly selling it. While there are certainly tax advantages to selling over the course of many years, bitcoin is one of the most volatile commodities out there, and one has no idea what will happen over the next few weeks, let alone the next few years. It may go to tens of thousands of dollars a coin, or it may go to basically zero. If I had a million dollars in my pocket, bitcoin isn't how I'd choose to store it all. Just something to think about; obviously you need to make the best choice for you for yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6057489b63d4a6078034e2f58b3fe5f7", "text": "I'm not sure, but I think the monetary system of Second Life or World of Warcraft would correspond to what you are looking for. I don't think they are independent of the dollar though, since acquiring liquidity in those games can be done through exchange for real dollars. But there can be more closed systems, maybe Sim type games where this is not the case. I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "256281edbae94c0904bd9b4f76f8fe41", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/style/what-is-cryptocurrency.html?referer=) reduced by 95%. (I'm a bot) *** > Most readers have probably heard of Bitcoin, the digital coin that dominates the cryptocurrency market. > As traditional paths to upper-middle-class stability are being blocked by debt, exorbitant housing costs and a shaky job market, these investors view cryptocurrency not only as a hedge against another Dow Jones crash, but also as the most rational - and even utopian - means of investing their money. > Assuming one&#039;s money is protected, there are, of course, the standard risks of investing, amplified by the volatility of cryptocurrency. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6sdv1b/ethereum_in_nytimes/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~186120 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: cryptocurrency^#1 market^#2 money^#3 coin^#4 invest^#5\"", "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": "2e963a985a9bfcb61d6590bd0e46d14d", "text": "Try something like this: http://www.halifax.co.uk/sharedealing/our-accounts/fantasy-trader/ Virtual or fantasy trading is a great way to immerse yourself in that world and not lose your money whilst you make basic mistakes. Once real money is involved, there are some online platforms that are cheaper for lower amount investing than others. This article is a good, recent starting point for you: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/diyinvesting/article-1718291/Pick-best-cheapest-investment-Isa-platform.html Best of luck in the investment casino! (And only risk money you can afford to lose - as with any form of investment, gambling, etc)", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a1f94435f4f590ce084a03515448522d	Tax exemptions for US stocks held in a Candian account	[ { "docid": "d5da1b2653d529de022d9b333f8a33f2", "text": "The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d090e456a27088b6844ae132bb20c829", "text": "\"You mention \"\"early exercise\"\" in your title, but you seem to misunderstand what early exercise really means. Some companies offer stock options that vest over a number of years, but which can be exercised before they are vested. That is early exercise. You have vested stock options, so early exercise is not relevant. (It may or may not be the case that your stock options could have been early exercised before they vested, but regardless, you didn't exercise them, so the point is moot.) As littleadv said, 83(b) election is for restricted stocks, often from exercising unvested stock options. Your options are already vested, so they won't be restricted stock. So 83(b) election is not relevant for you. A taxable event happen when you exercise. The point of the 83(b) election is that exercising unvested stock options is not a taxable event, so 83(b) election allows you to force it to be a taxable event. But for you, with vested stock options, there is no need to do this. You mention that you want it not to be taxable upon exercise. But that's what Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) are for. ISOs were designed for the purpose of not being taxable for regular income tax purposes when you exercise (although it is still taxable upon exercise for AMT purposes), and it is only taxed when you sell. However, you have Non-qualified Stock Options. Were you given the option to get ISOs at the beginning? Why did your company give you NQSOs? I don't know the specifics of your situation, but since you mentioned \"\"early exercise\"\" and 83(b) elections, I have a hypothesis as to what might have happened. For people who early-exercise (for plans that allow early-exercise), there is a slight advantage to having NQSOs compared to ISOs. This is because if you early exercise immediately upon grant and do 83(b) election, you pay no taxes upon exercise (because the difference between strike price and FMV is 0), and there are no taxes upon vesting (for regular or AMT), and if you hold it for at least 1 year, upon sale it will be long-term capital gains. On the other hand, for ISOs, it's the same except that for long-term capital gains, you have to hold it 2 years after grant and 1 year after exercise, so the period for long-term capital gains is longer. So companies that allow early exercise will often offer employees either NQSOs or ISOs, where you would choose NQSO if you intend to early-exercise, or ISO otherwise. If (hypothetically) that's what happened, then you chose wrong because you got NQSOs and didn't early exercise.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "623a7cf06315a9a2d497d5ccec710152", "text": "For a long term gain you must hold the stock a year and a day, so, the long term hold period will fall into 2015 regardless. This is the only tax related issue that occurs to me, did you have something else in mind? Welcome to Money.SE.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "99c560ff8a865296a2908cbc18ed8b0a", "text": "As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8364441010f6737d8fc4c32e0f598d57", "text": "The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af4dbc0ed1f473214c1b014c4152a01e", "text": "Question One: Question Two: Your best reference for this would be a brokerage account with data privileges in the markets you wish to trade. Failing that, I would reference the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME Group) website. Question Three: Considering future tuition costs and being Canadian, you are eligible to open a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP). While contributions to this plan are not tax deductible, any taxes on income earned through investments within the fund are deferred until the beneficiary withdraws the funds. Since the beneficiary will likely be in a lower tax bracket at such a time, the sum will likely be taxed at a lower rate, assuming that the beneficiary enrolls in a qualifying post secondary institution. The Canadian government also offers the Canada Education Savings Grant (CESG) in which the federal government will match 20% of the first $2500 of your annual RESP contribution up to a maximum of $500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8e8ea901175d73d27287d7dee8f433f", "text": "Since you say the money was invested in a corporation that would lead me to believe you mean a stock purchase. Stock losses can be treated as a tax exemption filed as a capital loss. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Taxes/Cutyourtaxes/P33438.asp http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2006-03-10-capital-losses_x.htm Canada has slightly more restrictions on how this can be done. http://www.taxtips.ca/filing/capitallosses.htm", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4c74688428cd21ef6eac74e3f0eefdf5", "text": "No, you can not cheat the IRS. This question is also based on the assumption that the stock will return to $1 which isn't always a safe assumption and that it will continue to cycle like that repeatedly which is also likely a false assumption.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3a867c6f052ff0ca6c6709e1a4dfacbe", "text": "The LLC portion is completely irrelevant. Don't know why you want it. You can create a joint/partnership trading account without the additional complexity of having LLC. What liability are you trying to limit here? Her sisters will file tax returns in the us using the form 1040NR, and only reporting the dividends they received, everything else will be taxed by Vietnam. You'll have to investigate how to file tax returns there as well. That said, you'll need about $500,000 each to invest in the regional centers. So you're talking about 1.5 million of US dollars at least. From a couple of $14K gifts to $1.5M just by trading? I don't see how this is feasible.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b33667625868aa72db975098d0a594ef", "text": "I'm afraid you're not going to get any good news here. The US government infused billions of dollars in capital as part of the bankruptcy deal. The old shares have all been cancelled and the only value they might have to you are as losses to offset other gains. I would definitely contact a tax professional to look at your current and previous returns to create a plan that best takes advantage of an awful situation. It breaks my heart to even think about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "44c10f3f81716241e5ff07cc901a373c", "text": "well, probably taxed a little. and taxed when they spend it, and taxed again when it is spent again. like fikirte said, this is foreign money. if the americans want access to it they have to make it easy. they've done it in the past http://law-journals-books.vlex.com/vid/the-portfolio-interest-exemption-53348889 sorry there is a lack of sources in real english.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ad0238d88d414fea8b5afbebfdffccf9", "text": "What I ended up doing was finding where each ticker of Novo was registered (what exchange), then individually looking up the foreign taxation rules of the containing country. Luckily, most companies only have a few tickers so this wasn't too hard in the end.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4b9db2532d31e7ac04a8971d89360cf", "text": "\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1001e5e487558fbab42ce5422ceda4a", "text": "Assuming a USA taxable account: Withdrawing funds from a brokerage account has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes are owed on the profit when you sell a stock, no matter what you do with the funds. Taxes are owed on any dividends the stock produces, no matter what you do with the dividend. The brokerage sends you a form 1099 each year that shows the amounts of dividends and profits. You have to figure out the taxes from that.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "088fc89a500d498fc4ea9e5fb306a759", "text": "Whether an investment is pre-tax is determined by the type of account (i.e., tax-advantaged vs ordinary taxable account), but whether you can invest in individual stocks is determined by the provider (i.e., the particular bank where you have the account). These are orthogonal choices. If you want to invest in individual stocks, you need to look for a bank that offers an IRA/401k/other tax-advantaged account and allows you to invest in individual stocks with it. For example, this page suggests that Fidelity would let you do that. Obviously you should look into various providers yourself to find one that offers the mix of features you want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "271b245c66784da2295c00234b95afee", "text": "Not knowing the US laws at all, you should worry more about having the best stock portfolio and less about taxes. My 0,02€", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
dc61adab03d819588c2ab357092cec47	How much of each stock do index funds hold?	[ { "docid": "a77676c832a22153b607e758f54d3de0", "text": "In general, the goal of an S&P 500 index fund is to replicate the performance of the S&P 500 Index. To do this, the fund will buy the same stocks in the same proportions as the weighting of the Index. The S&P 500 Index is free-float capitalization weighted. This means that the higher capitalization stocks (based on publicly traded shares only) are more heavily weighted and factor into the Index value more heavily than the smaller capitalization stocks, or the stocks that have a smaller publicly traded value. For example, companies like Apple, ExxonMobil, and Microsoft have a much larger weight in the index value than smaller companies. Alternatively, there are some S&P index funds that are equal-weighted. In these funds, the managers have chosen to purchase all 500 of the stocks in the index, but in equal proportions instead of the weighted proportions of the index. These equal-weighted funds will not as closely match the index price as the traditionally weighted index funds. Instead, they might do better or worse than the index, depending on how the individual stocks do. You'll need to look at the prospectus of the index funds you are interested in to see which approach the fund is taking.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3f766ea6c521a6a09ca1ba818400d965", "text": "An index fund is just copying the definition of an index. The group that defines the index determines how to weight the different parts of the index. The index fund just makes sure they invest the same way the index creator wants. Think of a non-investment scenario. A teacher can grade tests, quizzes, homework, in-class assignments, research papers. They decide how much weight to give each category and how much weight to give each part of each category. when a student wants to see how they are doing they take the information in the syllabus, and generate a few formulas in a spreadsheet to calculate their current grade. They can also calculate what they need to get on the final exam to get the grade they want.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "745af972c291ab920e3b2690a6d0ef9d", "text": "Yes, it depends on the fund it's trying to mirror. The ETF for the S&P that's best known (in my opinion) is SPY and you see the breakdown of its holdings. Clearly, it's not an equal weighted index.", "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": "3ac3e8aebe0e7a8e86731ab7190d5925", "text": "How do (index and active) mutual funds trade? Do they buy stocks as soon as a I buy a share in the mutual fund, or do they have fixed times they trade, such as once every week/month/quarter? Is it theoretical possible for someone to front run mutual funds, if someone holds individual stocks? Let's say an institutional investor creates an order of $100m in a mutual fund, how likely can a broker, which holds a fraction of the fund's portfolio, front run and take advantage of that trade? It is more likely to front run that fund if it's an active small cap fund, but how likely is it to front run trades for index funds?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bfb844efdcbda51b6ec1bb6a74c2bfb2", "text": "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Twain I use index funds in my retirement planning, but don't stick to just S&P 500 index funds. Suppose I balance my money 50/50 between Small Cap and Large Cap and say I have $10,000. I'd buy $5,000 of an S&P Index fund and $5,000 of a Russell 2000 index fund. Now, fast forward a year. Suppose the S&P Index fund has $4900 and the Russell Index fund has $5200. Sell $150 of Russell Index Fund and buy $150 of S&P 500 Index funds to balance. Repeat that activity every 12-18 months. This lets you be hands off (index fund-style) on your investment choices but still take advantage of great markets. This way, I can still rebalance to sell high and buy low, but I'm not stressing about an individual stock or mutual fund choice. You can repeat this model with more categories, I chose two for the simplicity of explaining.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6f10be87bc77e678b37429357387cd12", "text": "During the course of the year, the S&P individual stocks will have some dividends. Not every last stock but a good number of them. Enough that the average dividend for the S&P has been about 2% recently. So if the S&P index goes up, say 10%, an S&P fund should go up closer to 12%. For a fund holder, you'd normally see a declared dividend and cap gain distribution toward the end of each year. When you hold shares in a 401(k), dividends are reinvested into the fund, usually with no involvement from the members.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4d57b940f6bcc3cb7b72f3bb209aefc", "text": "This isn't totally wrong- there are hedge funds that are long 150% of AUM and short 50%. However, Rentech has said that holding a position for 8 seconds is long for them, so that's not what they're doing. I'd assume the 4X leverage most just refers to option positions that have delta 4 on average. They also may be borrowing money, which they can probably do extremely cheaply since they have a 35 year track record showing they're essentially risk-free.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0643549bec4cfd3d47f375fa02daa3dc", "text": "\"From How are indexes weighted?: Market-capitalization weighted indexes (or market cap- or cap-weighted indexes) weight their securities by market value as measured by capitalization: that is, current security price * outstanding shares. The vast majority of equity indexes today are cap-weighted, including the S&P 500 and the FTSE 100. In a cap-weighted index, changes in the market value of larger securities move the index’s overall trajectory more than those of smaller ones. If the fund you are referencing is an ETF then there may be some work to do to figure out what underlying securities to use when handling Creation and Redemption units as an ETF will generally have shares created in 50,000 shares at a time through Authorized Participants. If the fund you are referencing is an open-end fund then there is still cash flows to manage in the fund as the fund has create and redeem shares in on a daily basis. Note in both cases that there can be updates to an index such as quarterly rebalancing of outstanding share counts, changes in members because of mergers, acquisitions or spin-offs and possibly a few other factors. How to Beat the Benchmark has a piece that may also be useful here for those indices with many members from 1998: As you can see, its TE is also persistently positive, but if anything seems to be declining over time. In fact, the average net TE for the whole period is +0.155% per month, or an astounding +1.88% pa net after expenses. The fund expense ratio is 0.61% annually, for a whopping before expense TE of +2.5% annually. This is once again highly statistically significant, with p values of 0.015 after expenses and 0.0022 before expenses. (The SD of the TE is higher for DFSCX than for NAESX, lowering its degree of statistical significance.) It is remarkable enough for any fund to beat its benchmark by 2.5% annually over 17 years, but it is downright eerie to see this done by an index fund. To complete the picture, since 1992 the Vanguard Extended Index Fund has beaten its benchmark (the Wilshire 4500) by 0.56% per year after expenses (0.81% net of expenses), and even the Vanguard Index Trust 500 has beaten its benchmark by a razor thin 0.08% annually before (but not after) expenses in the same period. So what is going on here? A hint is found in DFA's 1996 Reference Guide: The 9-10 Portfolio captures the return behavior of U.S. small company stocks as identified by Rolf Banz and other academic researchers. Dimensional employs a \"\"patient buyer\"\" discount block trading strategy which has resulted in negative total trading costs, despite the poor liquidity of small company stocks. Beginning in 1982, Ibbotson Associates of Chicago has used the 9-10 Portfolio results to calculate the performance of small company stocks for their Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation yearbook. A small cap index fund cannot possibly own all of the thousands of stocks in its benchmark; instead it owns a \"\"representative sample.\"\" Further, these stocks are usually thinly traded, with wide bid/ask spreads. In essence what the folks at DFA learned was that they could tell the market makers in these stocks, \"\"Look old chaps, we don't have to own your stock, and unless you let us inside your spread, we'll pitch our tents elsewhere. Further, we're prepared to wait until a motivated seller wishes to unload a large block.\"\" In a sense, this gives the fund the luxury of picking and choosing stocks at prices more favorable than generally available. Hence, higher long term returns. It appears that Vanguard did not tumble onto this until a decade later, but tumble they did. To complete the picture, this strategy works best in the thinnest markets, so the excess returns are greatest in the smallest stocks, which is why the positive TE is greatest for the DFA 9-10 Fund, less in the Vanguard Small Cap Fund, less still in the Vanguard Index Extended Fund, and minuscule with the S&P500. There are some who say the biggest joke in the world of finance is the idea of value added active management. If so, then the punch line seems to be this: If you really want to beat the indexes, then you gotta buy an index fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f104aaaa262a368acdac8f46ddc2c436", "text": "Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f58997ea3544dbb5a29b25a20146ee45", "text": "Depends on the fund. If it's a Target Date fund, which is inherently diversified, this comes down to how much you trust the investment house to not go belly-up. If it's another kind of fund, you need to manage your own duversification and occasional rebalancing. Most of my money is in index funds (details elsewhere), but that's five or six very different indexes to cover the investment space with the mix of investment types I've selected. And most of it is in a single family of funds, which might be argued to be higher risk than desirable but which has been convenient.", "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": "0a25be21ae1f082eaa8de2b1ee66c756", "text": "If you bought 5 shares @ $20 each that would cost you $100 plus brokerage. Even if your brokerage was only $10 in and out, your shares would have to go up 20% just for you to break even. You don't make a profit until you sell, so just for you to break even your shares need to go up to $24 per share. Because your share holding would be so small the brokerage, even the cheapest around, would end up being a large percentage cost of any overall profits. If instead you had bought 500 shares at $20, being $1000, the $20 brokerage (in and out) only represents 2% instead of 20%. This is called economies of scale.", "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": "0d0fb6a1a06313f56e37e7e8b8c1b1f3", "text": "http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ Are you counting both class A and other share classes?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "545e9e42cce983a37760a9ff4bb41ede", "text": "I tried direct indexing the S&P500 myself and it was a lot of work. Lots of buys and sells to rebalance, tons of time in spreadsheets running calculations/monitoring etc, dealing with stocks being added or removed from the index, adding money (inflows). Etc. All of the work is the main reason I stopped. I came to realize the 0.05% I pay Vanguard is a great deal.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03d41dcf56859ae93fbc012bda231e5a", "text": "As has been pointed out, one isn't cheaper than the other. One may have a lower price per share than the other, but that's not the same thing. Let's pretend that the total market valuation of all the stocks within the index was $10,000,000. (Look, I said let's pretend.) You want to invest $1,000. For the time being, let's also pretend that your purchasing 0.01% of all the stock won't affect prices anywhere. One company splits the index into 10,000 parts worth $1,000 each. The other splits the same index into 10,000,000 parts worth $1 each. Both track the underlying index perfectly. If you invest $1,000 with the first company, you get one part; if you invest $1,000 with the second, you get 1,000 parts. Ignoring spreads, transaction fees and the like, immediately after the purchase, both are worth exactly $1,000 to you. Now, suppose the index goes up 2%. The first company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly one) are now worth $1,020 each, and the second company's shares of the index (of which you would have exactly 1,000) are worth $1.02 each. In each case, you now have index shares valued at $1,020 for a 2% increase ($1,020 / $1,000 = 1.02 = 102% of your original investment). As you can see, there is no reason to look at the price per share unless you have to buy in terms of whole shares, which is common in the stock market but not necessarily common at all in mutual funds. Because in this case, both funds track the same underlying index, there is no real reason to purchase one rather than the other because you believe they will perform differently. In an ideal world, the two will perform exactly equally. The way to compare the price of mutual funds is to look at the expense ratio. The lower the expense ratio is, the cheaper the fund is, and the less of your money is being eroded every day in fees. Unless you have some very good reason to do differently, that is how you should compare the price of any investment vehicles that track the same underlying commodity (in this case, the S&P 500).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "efebd66b19b609175d94d25078c301d4", "text": "Generally, the answer to the availability of holdings of a given mutual fund on a daily basis is no. Thus, an API is non-existent. The reasons for the lack of transparency on a daily basis is that it could/would impact the portfolio managers ability to trade. While this information would not necessarily permit individuals from front running the fund manager's trades, it does give insight in to the market outlook and strategy the fund is employing. The closest you'll be able to get to obtaining a list of holdings is by reading the most recent annual report and the quarterly filings each fund is required to file with the SEC.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ef9d348bbe5f1714fae78ad0a3deefa4", "text": "Given that a mutual fund manager knows, at the end of the day, precisely how many shares/units/whatever of each investment (stock, equity, etc.) they own, plus their bank balance, It is calculating this given. There are multiple orders that a fund manager requests for execution, some get settled [i.e. get converted into trade], the shares itself don't get into account immediately, but next day or 2 days later depending on the exchange. Similarly he would have sold quite a few shares and that would still show shares in his account. The bank balance itself will not show the funds to pay as the fund manager has purchased something ... or the funds received as the fund manager has sold something. So in general they roughly know the value ... but they don't exactly know the value and would have to factor the above variables. That's not a simple task when you are talking about multiple trades across multiple shares.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
84a55a6dd6e294db7034755f72e454eb	Do algorithmic traders make money from short-term or long-term gains?	[ { "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": "080f1441ed2449ac0f8b491df7e1a3d0", "text": "I'm talking about day trading here. Automated day trading never worked for me. But I will also admit I am terrible at automated day trading. I'm sorry if the premise of my post sounds off. I know it sounds like I'm being an idiot by not going the automated route, but it works for me and that's why I'm going to stick with my own techniques. Why change it if it's working?", "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": "55f5766b4bd76b7cc568d0b2098f45c3", "text": "\"It's a matter of social policy. The government wants people to make long term investments because that would lead to other long-term government goals: employment, manufacturing, economical growth in general. While speculative investments and day-trading are not in any way discouraged, investments that contribute to the economy as a whole and not just the investor are encouraged by the lower tax rates on the profits. While some people consider it to be a \"\"fig leaf\"\", I consider these people to be populists and dishonest. Claiming that long term social goals are somehow bad is hypocrisy. Claiming that short-term trading contributes to the economy as a whole is a plain lie.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "db80ee9cc1f82f76ee6adc6bc300bb4f", "text": "\"Yes, Interactive Brokers is a good source for live data feeds and they have an API which is used to programmatically access the feeds, you will have to pay for data feeds from the individual data sources though. The stock exchanges have a very high price for their data and this has stifled innovation in the financial sector for several decades in the united states. But at the same time, it has inflated the value and mystique of \"\"quants\"\" doing simple algorithms \"\"that execute within milliseconds\"\" for banks and funds. Also RIZM has live feeds, it is a younger service than other exchanges but helps people tap into any online broker's feeds and let you trade your custom algorithms that way, that is their goal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8953063491a0162c87cdf123213b6f1a", "text": "I think it's because there are people who build entire wealth-gain strategies around certain conditions. When those conditions change, their mechanism of gaining wealth is threatened and they may take a short term loss as they transform their holdings to a new strategy.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cc25350853bd49c0776a03e2ab19e8c9", "text": "Machine learning is definitely applied to trading, but I have not tried it myself. For now I've been focused on figuring out the platforms and how they work; I have not been trying out other strategies besides a SMAC strategy. The most machine learning-like application I've attempted was cross-validation by walk-forward analysis (I'm publishing that post on Monday). I know nothing about TensorFlow other than it's used for deep learning and that it doesn't work on Windows and thus would not work on my more powerful gaming computer, and like I said above, I have not been exploring machine learning right now. Neural networks are on my radar, on the list of things I need to read, but there was a topic on r/algotrading recently where most users said that deep learning has not demonstrated better performance than more traditional ML techniques and looks like a fad. I want to convince myself of that first, though. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and my site! Thank you!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2dc4fec57148f221da98f849fa2699b5", "text": "\"....causes loses [sic] to others. Someone sells you a stock. The seller receives cash. You receive a stock certificate. This doesn't imply a loss by either party especially if the seller sold the stock for more than his purchase price. A day trading robot can make money off of the price changes of a stock only if there are buyers and sellers of the stock at certain prices. There are always two parties in any stock transaction: a buyer and a seller. The day trading robot can make money off of an investment for 20 years and you could still make money if the investment goes up over the 20 years. The day trading robot doesn't \"\"rob\"\" you of any profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a195aa123226790c73bc1995aee219f8", "text": "\"Of course, which is why you need to have a scoring function / utility function for the \"\"filters\"\", i.e. Are you going to value it by rate of accuracy hor by a metric where wins = +2, losses = -1, such that it uses a criteria like that to decide whether or not a filter adds value, (some even use a compound effect i.e. wins = 2+e^(1+w) where w is the consecutive wins). A metric like the above would capture the trade off between predictive power and profit. Also some traders watch their Max DD very carefully so they may be very risk averse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6e6390bc4bd318df463271b969ab2ba9", "text": "This has never really adequately explained it for me, and I've tried reading up on it all over the place. For a long time I thought that in a trade, the market maker pockets the spread for that trade, but that's not the case. The only sensible explanation I've found (which I'm not going to give in full...) is that the market maker will provide liquidity by buying and selling trades they have no actual view on (short or long), and if the spread is higher, that contributes directly to the amount they make over time when they open and close positions they've made. It would be great to see a single definitive example somewhere that shows how a market maker makes money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c55c6539c53629f1b24fd07d037beda7", "text": "\"Algorithmic trading doesn't necessarily require live feeds. It is a very generic term describing trading based on the decisions made by a machine and not a person. One very prominent type of algo-trading is \"\"high frequency trading\"\". For HFT to be effective, not only do you need live feeds (which are provided by the exchanges electronically), you need them before others get them. That's why HFT traders put their machines as close as possible (physically) to the exchange data centers, sometimes even renting racks at the same datacenters from the exchanges themselves.\"", "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": "64a0080a7faeef7c5d3b8afb1106f8f2", "text": "\"If i do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. The \"\"random walk\"\"/EMH theory that you are assuming is debatable. Among many arguments against EMH, one of the more relevant ones is that there are actually winning trading strategies (e.g. momentum models in trending markets) which invalidates EMH. 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%. It's only true if the market is truly an independent stochastic process. As mentioned above, there are empirical evidences suggesting that it's not. is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? The ability to profit is more than just being able to make a right call on which direction the market will be going. Even beginners can have a >50% chance of getting on the right side of the trades. It's the position management that kills most of the PnL.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7e580929c80c1a59673b0da603501aa", "text": "In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e518dc8abac3f5ab685656cd8efff5b7", "text": "\"Largely, because stock markets are efficient markets, at least mostly if not entirely; while the efficient market hypothesis is not necessarily 100% correct, for the majority of traders it's unlikely that you could (on the long term) find significant market inefficiencies with the tools available to an individual of normal wealth (say, < $500k). That's what frequent trading intends to do: find market inefficiencies. If the market is efficient, then a stock is priced exactly at what it should be worth, based on risk and future returns. If it is inefficient, then you can make more money trading on that inefficiency versus simply holding it long. But in stating that a stock is inefficient, you are stating that you know something the rest of the market doesn't - or some condition is different for you than the other million or so people in the market. That's including a lot of folks who do this for a living, and have very expensive modelling software (and hardware to run it on). I like to think that I'm smarter than the far majority of people, but I'm probably not the smartest guy in the room, and I certainly don't have that kind of equipment - especially with high frequency trading nowadays. As such, it's certainly possible to make a bit of money as a trader versus as a long-term investor, but on the whole it's similar to playing poker for a living. If you're smarter than most of the people in the room, you might be able to make a bit of money, but the overhead - in the case of poker, the money the house charges for the game, in the case of stocks, the exchange fees and broker commissions - means that it's a losing game for the group as a whole, and not very many people can actually make money. Add to that the computer-based trading - so imagine a poker game where four of the eight players are computer models that are really good (and actively maintained by very smart traders) and you can see where it gets to be very difficult to trade at a profit (versus long term investments, which take advantage of the growth in value in the company). Finally, the risk because of leverage and option trading (which is necessary to really take advantage of inefficiencies) makes it not only hard to make a profit, but easy to lose everything. Again to the poker analogy, the guys I've known playing poker for a living do it by playing 10-20 games at once - because one game isn't efficient enough, you wouldn't make enough money. In poker, you can do that fairly safely, especially in limit games; but in the market, if you're leveraging your money you risk losing a lot. Every action you take to make it \"\"safer\"\" removes some of your profit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cfc707d9a22071924bec908c2ec0b80d", "text": "\"What do I mean by infrastructure? Well, if you're doing algorithmic trading, you have to have something monitoring data and making decisions on its own, presumably. How do you set that up? There are many ways, and some are better than others. First is a problem of scale. If you're a newbie starting out with some small set of equity tick data, perhaps just trades for instance, you can whip together something that can handle that pretty easily. Check out http://www.marketdatapeaks.com/ though. That's your messaging rates you have to deal with once you go full data feeds direct from all the exchanges. 6.65 million messages/events per second. That's a lot. And if you fall behind, you lose your lunch. Building a robust system that allows you to easily backtest and deploy strategies is crucial as well. The speed at which you're able to conduct the backtest matters a lot. Doing that rapidly, and accurately is not easy. For a broad market-data handling algo design (and now, clearly, for very specific things you can design one that'll handle stuff better for that one corner case, but this is for general algo trading), optimally you have some sort of setup where you have a: [feed handlers] -> [tickerplant] -> [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -> [order management system] -> [broker] in this setup you have feed handlers that are taking the raw exchange feeds and pushing them to a consolidated tickerplant, where CEP subscribers can come through and sub to the data they want (perhaps I just want ES futures on one, and only want to arb CMCSA and CMCSK on another -- you dont want each CEP subscriber getting your full feed for all tickers all the time, its a waste). so more or less, each independent strategy is its own subscriber to the tickerplant, taking whatever data it wants and only that data (could be \"\"give me all the trades and quotes for all nasdaq stocks, but not book depth\"\" for instance). your CEP does whatever maths it has to do to figure out trading decisions, and when it does, it sends it to your order management system which does your risk checks, etc (\"\"do you have enough money to place this trade?\"\" \"\"do you already have a position in this?\"\" \"\"are you trading against yourself?\"\" ... million other things). your OMS knows how to talk to your broker/directly to the exchange depending on your setup. Assuming all your risk checks pass, off the order goes to the exchange, and it deals with the fill msgs, etc. Now, as far as speed is concerned - try to do all of this at 6.5 million events/second. It's hard. Some strats/cep subscribers will run faster than others, some are slower, some need to keep a full book to work while some work on just trades. Your OMS depending on if youre using only market data sources may need to keep its own book to place orders on behalf of your subscribers if they lack information about various markets (think all the twitter trading bots these days for instance), etc. If you look back at the above setup as well, you'll notice some interesting things. [tickerplant] -> [cep subscriber] portion can stay the same for live trading or backtesting. This is huge. The only thing that changes here for backtesting is that if you're trying to backtest, you can take historical data (query it out of your hopefully column-store database) and push it into your tickerplant rather than having it come from a live feed through the feed handler. Your tickerplant and cep subscriber will never know the difference, so you can use the same exact code for backtesting as you can for live. On the other end, you obviously cant send historical orders to your live broker, so you need to code a simulated OMS that does the backtest simulation (another huge piece of software to code that is hard to do well). But, for backtesting, your setup is staying largely the same except those two end pieces. This means that testing/deving/deploying strats can be pretty rapid, and uses the same code base for live and historical, which helps you eliminate bugs and have to code everything twice. Backtesting design: [historical mkt data db] -> [tickerplant] -> [mkt data subscribers/CEP] -> [order management system simulator/backtester] These are just a few of the many problems that you hit when trying to dev good infra. There are like a million more. Point was simply, it's complicated. And C++ is a good lang. I use a wide variety of languages depending on exactly whats going on and how fast the code needs to be. With a proper tickerplant design, youre using some ipc protocol so a subscriber can be coded in any language. Check out http://www.zeromq.org/ -- thats an excellent piece of software to use to make a tickerplant out of, think they even have a design for one in the docs if I recall. With that, your CEP subscribers can be in any language - perhaps pure C if you need the speed, perhaps .NET or Java if you dont (check out http://esper.codehaus.org/ for a Java implement of a CEP subscriber, nEsper for the C# port of that I believe). But I use C, C++, C#, python, R, x86 asm for a few very minor things, and a lang or two I can't mention here.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e250a90834ac23e8fc8fdeb43baee323	Is the concept of an “odd lot” adjusted to stock price?	[ { "docid": "3a66a5e43fcafe49252adcf58e4aacba", "text": "I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "22b1ea9120af491bb5ea89dbba820eb4", "text": "\"Thanks for pointing out [the study](http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1748851). It's a slightly different cause than what I was describing when I posted this. Specifically, they show an effect not when the names get confused, but rather when the name similarity simply brings more attention to the stock. I was surprised nobody mentioned that in response to my post. But also interesting is that they had to control for simple confusion between stock symbols, which implies that ticker confusion has a known effect. So I dug into research on that and quickly found [this study](http://www.efmaefm.org/0EFMAMEETINGS/EFMA%20ANNUAL%20MEETINGS/2010-Aarhus/EFMA2010_0161_fullpaper.pdf) found \"\"a high positive correlation between returns on two matching stocks with similar ticker symbols\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c39c551f496cf4eb9805d8702548952", "text": "I assert not so. Even if we assume a zero sum game (which is highly in doubt); the general stock market curves indicate the average player is so bad that you don't have to be very good to have better that 50/50 averages. One example: UP stock nosedived right after some political mess in Russia two years ago. Buy! Profit: half my money in a month. I knew that nosedive was senseless as UP doesn't have to care much about what goes on in Russia. Rising oil price was a reasonable prediction; however this is good for railroads, and most short-term market trends behave as if it is bad.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e5fd2fc3ea79e1c5c3779c8ed00a42f8", "text": "\"Yes, there are non-stock analogs to the Price/Earnings ratio. Rental properties have a Price/Rent ratio, which is analogous to stocks' Price/Revenue ratio. With rental properties, the \"\"Cap Rate\"\" is analogous to the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio of a company that has no long-term debt. Bonds have an interest rate. Depending on whether you care about current dividends or potential income, the interest rate is analogous to either a stock's dividend rate or the inverse of the Price/Earnings ratio.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8cb8c260e0aa71f1a449689c970c47d6", "text": "\"Investors are \"\"forever\"\" comparing the prices of stocks to other stocks. As others have pointed out, this is done faster and more frequently nowadays with high-speed computer programs. There may be no \"\"fresh\"\" news on stock A, but if there is fresh news on stock B (as there usually is), the news on B affects the COMPARISON with stock A. That could be what causes trading in stock A that has \"\"no news.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c214d560ed54ea4495c8526b2894adf6", "text": "The worth of a share of stocks may be defined as the present cash value of all future dividends and liquidations associated therewith. Without a crystal ball, such worth may generally only be determined retrospectively, but even though it's generally not possible to know the precise worth of a stock in time for such information to be useful, it has a level of worth which is absolute and not--unlikely market price--is generally unaffected by people buying and selling the stock (except insofar as activities in company stock affect a company's ability to do business). If a particular share of stock is worth $10 by the above measure, but Joe sells it to Larry for $8, that means Joe gives Larry $2. If Larry sells it to Fred $12, Fred gives Larry $2. The only way Fred can come out ahead is if he finds someone else to give him $2 or more. If Fred can sell it to Adam for $13, then Adam will give Fred $3, leaving Fred $1 better off than he would be if he hadn't bought the stock, but Adam will be $3 worse off. The key point is that if you sell something for less than it's worth, or buy something for more that it's worth, you give money away. You might be able to convince other people to give you money in the same way you gave someone else money, but fundamentally the money has been given away, and it's not coming back.", "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": "9dc79b3de3b14ea3a532ab4c581eab0e", "text": "How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b14dd8648d5c653d81d1eed23318e43d", "text": "This can arise with very thinly traded stocks for large blocks of shares. If the market only has a few thousand dollars available at between 8.37 and 12.5 the price is largely meaningless for people who want to invest in hundreds of thousands/millions of dollars worth, as the quoted price can't get them anywhere near the number of shares they want. How liquid is the stock in question?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61dda950b48e704bbd339e847c67df77", "text": "Stock prices are indeed proportional to supply and demand. The greater the demand for a stock, the greater the price. If they are, would this mean that stock prices completely depend on HOW the public FEELS/THINKS about the stock instead of what it is actually worth? This is a question people have argued for decades. Literature in behavioral finance suggests that investors are not rational and thus markets are subject to wild fluctuation based on investor sentiment. The efficient market theory (EMT) argues that the stock market is efficient and that a stock's price is an accurate reflection of its underlying or intrinsic value. This philosophy took birth with Harry Markovitz's efficient frontier, and Eugene Fama is generally seen as the champion of EMT in the 1960's and onward. Most investors today would agree that the markets are not perfectly efficient, and that a stock's price does not always reflect its value. The renowned professor Benjamin Graham once wrote: In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run it is a weighing machine. This suggests that prices in the short term are mainly influenced by how people feel about the stock, while in the long run the price reflects what it's actually worth. For example, people are really big fans of tech stocks right now, which suggests why LinkedIn (stock: LNKD) has such a high share price despite its modest earnings (relative to valuation). People feel really good about it, and the price might sustain if LinkedIn becomes more and more profitable, but it's also possible that their results won't be absolutely stellar, so the stock price will fall until it reflects the company's fundamentals.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "91b417b497de26427f7464a4309b0339", "text": "As said previously, most of the time volume does not affect stock prices, except with penny stocks. These stocks typically have a small volume in the 3 or 4 figure range and because of this they typically experience very sharp rises and drops in stock prices, contrasting normal stocks that go up and down constantly every minute. Volume is not one thing you should be looking at when analyzing a stock in most cases, since it is simply the number of people of trades made in a day. That has no effect on the value of the company, whereas looking at P/E ratios, dividend growth, etc all can be analyzed to see if a company is growing and is doing well in its field. If I buy an iPhone, it doesn't matter if 100 other people or 100,000 other people have bought it as well, since they won't really affect my experience with the product. Whereas the type of iPhone I buy will.", "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": "8d22309c11ce6d096acf4c779c7ab65b", "text": "Yes you can. it's called Odd Lot", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8b5c6c2466ff3fa1b44e11fd7d270ef", "text": "No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels. Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1c3238b1e61f3a388948be934ced572c", "text": "\"The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values. You are correct that you can \"\"un-split\"\" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would. As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "af1179f9ecef6167221f32226a1cb8a6", "text": "Excellent question for a six year old! Actually, a good question for a 20 year old! One explanation is a bit more complicated. Your son thinks that after the Christmas season the company is worth more. For example, they might have turned $10 million of goods into $20 million of cash, which increases their assets by $10 million and is surely a good thing. However, that's not the whole picture: Before the Christmas season, we have a company with $10 million of goods and the Christmas season just ahead, while afterwards we have a company with $20 million cash and nine months of slow sales ahead. Let's say your son gets $10 pocket money every Sunday at 11am. Five minutes to 11 he has one dollar in his pocket. Five minutes past 11 he has 11 dollars in his pocket. Is he richer now? Not really, because every minute he gets a bit closer to his pocket money, and five past eleven he is again almost a week away from the next pocket money On the other hand... on Monday, he loses his wallet with $10 inside - he is now $10 poorer. Or his neighbour unexpectedly offers him to wash his car for $10 and he does it - he is now $10 richer. So if the company got robbed in August with all stock gone, no insurance, but time to buy new stock for the season, they lose $10 million, the company is worth $10 million less, and the share price drops. If they get robbed just before Christmas sales start, they don't make the $20 million sales, so they are $10 million poorer, but they are $20 million behind where they should be - the company is worth $20 millions less, and the share price drops twice as much. On the other hand, if there is a totally unexpected craze for a new toy going on from April to June (and then it drops down), and they make $10 million unexpectedly, they are worth $10 million more. Expected $10 million profit = no increase in share price. Unexpected $10 million profit - increase in share price. Now the second, totally different explanation. The share price is not based on the value of the company, but on what people are willing to pay. Say it's November and I own 100 shares worth $10. If everyone knew they are worth $20 in January, I would hold on to my shares and not sell them for $10! It would be very hard to convince me to sell them for $19! If you could predict that the shares will be worth $20 in January, then they would be worth $20 now. The shareprice will not go up or down if something good or bad happens that everyone expects. It only goes up or down if something happens unexpectedly.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
3ce5f1ff05b5933a700e6881ff0b62ac	Why is it possible to just take out a ton of credit cards, max them out and default in 7 years?	[ { "docid": "ede5ee05e12555948d4b99b7e4d4e0c8", "text": "\"Well, primarily because that's fraud and fraud prevents a debtor from receiving a discharge in bankruptcy court. Fraud would be pretty easy to prove if you didn't have an income change and you have several lines of credit opened on and around the same day with almost no payments made toward them. Additionally, thanks to the reforms of the bankruptcy code, if your income exceeds the median income of your state you'll be forced in to a Chapter 13 and committed to a repayment plan that allocates all of your \"\"disposable income\"\" to your creditors. Now if whoever posted that will attempt to simply not pay then negotiate repayment plans with their creditors the process will last far longer than 7 years. It takes a long time to be in default for enough time that a consumer creditor will negotiate the debt and this is assuming the creditor doesn't sue you and get a judgement which could apply liens to any property you may own. The judgment(s) will likely cause you to pursue bankruptcy anyway; only now you're at least a few years beyond the point at which you ruined your credit.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61a4a764a875af8f9f5691216a9ac4c0", "text": "It may become difficult to rent a car or a hotel room. It may affect your ability to get a job. Some employers now check credit reports and disqualify candidates with a poor credit report. It may affect your ability to get a security clearance or professional bonding. It may affect your ability to find housing. Many landlords check credit reports. You may be harassed morning, noon, and night by collection agencies. This can be theoretically solved by declaring bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy court may force the sale of some of your assets to make payments towards your debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "81d114ea295197e18a5c001af09566f2", "text": "I should apply for everything I can on the same day, get approved for as many as I can First it may not sound as easy. You may hardly get 2-3 cards and not dozens. Even if you submit the applications the same day; If you still plan this and somehow get too many cards, and draw huge debt, then the Banks can take this seriously and file court case. If Banks are able to establish the intent; this can get constituted as fraud and liable for criminal proceedings. So in short if someone has the money and don't want to pay; the court can attach the wage or other assets and make the person pay. If the intent was fraud one can even be sent to jail.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cb85de0b7686d07f00729fa1f49c9002", "text": "The U.S. bankruptcy laws no longer make it simple to discharge credit card debt, so you can't simply run up a massive tab on credit cards and then just walk away from them anymore. That used to be the case, but that particular loophole no longer exists the way it once did. Further, you could face fraud charges if it can be proven you acted deliberately with the intent to commit fraud. Finally, you won't be able to rack up a ton of new cards as quickly as you might think, so your ability to amass enough to make your plan worth the risk is not as great as you seem to believe. As a closing note, don't do it. All you do is make it more expensive for the rest of us to carry credit cards. After all, the banks aren't going to eat the losses. They'll just pass them along in the form of higher fees and rates to the rest of us.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "3d546b6e4bd4a4a825ca9009cdc7b12a", "text": "Another reason is that the amount of unused credit you have is a positive factor on your credit score. It's generally easier to open several different accounts for $X dollars each with different banks than to get your current bank to raise your limit severalfold in a single go. Your current bank has to worry about why you suddenly are asking for a large additional amount of credit; while other banks will be willing to offer you smaller amounts of credit in the hope that you transfer your business from your current bank to them.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "419c6063c33db379ef4c2ff4a27452c2", "text": "It's a business decision for a lot of people. You can either be stuck with the debt for the rest of your life, or you can default, settle for a much smaller amount, and ride out the 7 years that it will be on your credit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "95d09eb0abac324be064402b319b207c", "text": "I'm not sure if someone else answered already in the same manner I will. I can't guarantee for sure if it's the same in the U.S.A. (it might since major credit cards companies like Visa/MC/AMEX are American companies) but in Canada having/keeping unused CC is a disadvantage because of the following: Banks and financing companies look more at the total amount of credit available to you than at how much purchases you have on your cards. Ex: Let's say that you have the following: - Visa cc with $10,000 limit and $2000 worth of purchases (made more than 30 days ago) on it. - Mastercard cc with $10,000 limit as well and $1000 worth of purchases (less than 30 days old) - A major retail store cc with $2000 limit and $0 balance. Hypothetical situation: You want a bank loan to do some expensive house repairs and are looking for a lower interest rate than what your cc can offer. The bank will not care about the amount on the cards. They will add-up all the limits of your cc and treat your loan request as if ALL your cards were filled to their respective limit. So in this case: they will consider you as being right now in debt of $10K+$10K+$2K = $22,000 instead of only $3000 and they might: 1. refuse you the loan 2. grant it only if you transfer all purchases on a single card and cancel all the others. 3. Once the $3000 is transferred on one of the cards (and the others cancelled), they can require that you reduce the limit of that card. Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c08db17711eb452e35317801bdf55f13", "text": "There is one massive catch in this which I found out when I went to Nationwide to ask for a loan. I've got a credit card which they kept increasing my credit limit, it's now at something ridiculous - nearly £10,000 but they keep increasing it. I never use that card, when I went to Nationwide though they said they couldn't give me a loan because I had £10,000 credit already and if I reduced this credit this would affect my credit rating and they could potentially give me a loan. I then realised what MBNA had craftily done. I have two cards with this bank, one with really low interest and the other with really high interest (and a high credit limit) - even though the other card has a zero balance loan companies still see it as money I could potentially go and spend, it doesn't matter to them that I've not spent any money on that card in about 12 months, to them it's the fact that they could give me a loan and then I could go and spend another £10,000 on that card (as you can see extremely risky). Of course this means that what MBNA are craftily doing is giving me such a high credit, knowing full well that I'm not going to use it, but it also prevents their competitors from offering me a loan, even at a lower rate, because I've already got too much credit available. So yes there is a catch to giving you a high credit limit on your cards and it's to prevent you from either leaving that bank or getting a lower interest rate loan out to clear the debt.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfdae4d4e49db42f4ac8872b91cedfe5", "text": "Assume that he reformed his ways. He stopped the destructive behavior (gambling) and had enough money from a job going forward to pay for all his future expenses. Then it is true the old debts will fade away both as being collectable, and as a source of a negative mark on the credit report. Also assume that the people or companies never figure out that the the relative has a steady source of income, also assume that all the debts can be forgiven and have no long lasting impact. If any of those assumptions aren't true the plan won't work. The trail of debts will continue to grow, and may have additional complications. As debts fall off the radar, they may be replaced even faster by new threats. Many a person has used a debt consolidation loan, or a home equity loan to pay off all the credit cards; but found themselves back in trouble because they never fixed the underlying problem: they spend more than they make. In the case of a home equity loan they put their house at rick, as a replacement of unsecured loans. If the gambling continues, the lack of payment of old debts becomes a crutch for the ability to generate new debts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c8aaf167eb2c41d5f96cc799f1d14288", "text": "First of all debt is a technology that allows borrower to bring forward their spending; it's a financial time machine. From borrowers point of view debt is good when it increases overall economic utility. A young person wants to bring up a family but cannot afford the house. Had they waited for 30 years they would have reached the level of income and savings to buy the house for cash. By the time it might be too late to raise a family, sure they'd enjoy the house for the last 20 years of their life. But they would loose 30 years of utility - they could have enjoyed the house for 50 years! So, for a reasonable fee, they can bring the spending forward. Another young person might want to enjoy a life of luxury, using the magical debt time machine and bringing forward their future earnings. They might spend 10 years worth of future earnings on entertainment within a year and have a blast. Due to the law of diminishing marginal utility - all that utility is pretty much wasted, but they'll still will need to make sacrifices in the future. The trick is to roughly match the period of debt repayment to the economic life of the purchase. Buying a house means paying over 30 years for an asset that has an economic life of 80 years+, given that the interest fee is reasonable and the house won't loose it's value overnight that's a good debt. Buying a used car with a remaining life of 5 years and financing its with a seven years loan - is not a good idea. Buying a luxurious holiday that lasts a fortnight with 2 years of repayments, i.e. financing non-essential short term need with medium term debt is insane. The other question is could the required utility be achieved through a substitute at a lower cost without having to bring the spending forward or paying the associated fee.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4fc4ac4f7ca3ecb88f84aba4ae15a19", "text": "Most credit cards will allow you to pick the closing date. In fact almost every bill with the exception of utilities that collected usage by reading a meter at the house will either let you pick the closing date each month, or at least have several to pick from. They won't let you pick the length, but they will let you pick the day of the month. When I worked a job that paid once a month. I wanted all my bills due early in the month: get paid, pay bill, know how much I have left. When I went back to every other week spreading them out made more sense. No credit card had a problem with this. The transitional cycle was not the correct length, but after that it was fine. As Dheer pointed out extending the cycle to 90 days would involve them extending credit for much longer than they would be comfortable. Also the goal of keeping utilization under 30% would be very difficult, you would have to keep your spending per month to less than 10% of your credit limit. Some people have trouble not falling behind on credit card bills, having to set aside the money to pay the bill every 90 day may be way to tough for many people.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e758473b1265a4258993587b6d485ba", "text": "It could be a a way to preserve the value of your money, but depends upon various factors. If a country defaults, and it leads to hyper-inflation, by definition that means that money loses its purchasing power. In even simpler terms, it cannot buy as much tomorrow as I could today. Therefore people can be incented to either hoard physical goods, or other non-perishable items. Real-estate may well be such an item. If you are resident in the country, you have to live somewhere. It is possible that a landlord might try to raise rent beyond what your job is willing to pay. Of course, in a house, you might have a similar situation with utilities like electricity... Assuming some kind of re-stabilization of the economy and currency, even with several more zeros on the end, it is conceivable that the house would subsequently sell for an appropriately inflation adjusted amount, as other in-demand physical goods may. Lots of variables. Good Luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "073b3eb0dee6ddfc8dd179b6ad9294c0", "text": "This can mean a few things to me. Some of which has been mentioned already. It can mean one (or all) of the following to me: You take out a new credit card and transfer ALL other credit balances to it. (Only good if you destroy the others, this is a 0% offer, AND you plan on paying this card off furiously.) You do the loan thing mentioned earlier. You go to a credit consolidation service who will handle your paying your payments and you send them one payment each month. (Highly discourage using them. A majority of them are shady, and won't get do what they say they will do. Check Better Business Bureau if you find yourself considering them as an option.) In the first two cases, you are just reducing the number of hands reaching into your bank account. But keep in mind, doing this is not the same as paying off debt. You can't borrow your way out. You can do this as part of your plan, but do so CAREFULLY.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e1c620054027351698e7137c660e877", "text": "It does make sense to combine debts and pay off the worst (highest interest rate). However, if you can't get any loan, you should focus on the worst debt and pay that off. Then take the same amount of money you were paying to the next worse debt, and so on until you're clean. Let's look at an example. Debt A is at 5%, Debt B is at 10% and Debt C is at 15%. You are paying AB and C. On a monthly basis, you save 100€ to pay off C. Once C is payed off, you keep on saving 100€ and add whatever you were paying to Debt C to those savings. This way, you can pay off Debt B at an increased rate. When B is cleared, you save 100€ + whatever you were paying to Debt B and Debt C to clear Debt A. That's the theory.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ce7c0d1463f54bb3023002cd4b68a3ca", "text": "Think about the credit card business model... they have two revenue generators: interest and fees from borrowers and commissions and fees to merchants. The key to a successful credit card is to both sign up lots of borrowers AND lots of merchants. Credit card fortunes have improved dramatically since the 1990's when formerly off-limits merchants like grocery stores began to accept cards. So when a credit card lets you just pull cash out of any ATM, there are a few costs they need to account for when pricing the cost for such a service: Credit card banks have managed to make cash advances both a profit center and a self-serving perk. Knowing that you can always draw upon your credit line for an emergency when cash is necessary makes you less likely to actually carry cash and more likely to just rely on your credit card.", "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": "765030ab89ad614b11797593a102d108", "text": "Cancelled cards don't fall off the system for a long time, up to ten years. Card terms change, with notice of course, but it can happen at any time. I had a card with a crazy perk, 5% back in Apple Gift cards. This was pre-iPod days, but it was great to get a new computer every two years for free. But it was short lived. Three years into it, the cards were changed, a no-perk card from the bank. That is now my oldest account, and it goes unused. Instead of holding cards like this, I wish I had flipped it to a different card years ago. Ideally, your mix of cards should provide value to you, and if they all do, then when one perk goes away, it's time to refresh that card. This is a snapshot from my report at CreditKarma. (Disclosure, I like these guys, I've met their PR folk. I have no business relationship with them) Elsewhere on the page it's noted that average card age is a 'medium impact' item. I am 50, but I use the strategy above to keep the cards working for me. My current score is 784, so this B on the report isn't hurting too much. The tens of thousands I've saved in mortgage interest by being a serial refinancer was worth the hit on account age, as was the credit card with a 10% rebate for 90 days, the 'newest account' you see in the snapshot. In the end, the score manipulation is a bit of a game. And some of it is counter-intuitive. Your score can take a minor hit for actions that would seem responsible, but your goal should be to have the right mix of cards, and the lowest interest (long term) loans.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4870379e2d182776ffee1bca1cddc463", "text": "You are right in saying that you cannot go over limit on (most) credit cards, however, with a debit card the majority of banks will extend an overdraft to you if your account goes overdrawn (less than 0). The amount of overdraft extended will depend on your credit rating and standing with the bank and may not be extended if they think that the amount is too large or that you are a credit risk. The drawbacks of overdrafts are that they are very expensive usually having a fixed fee for going into overdraft and charging a high rate of interest. If this overdraft has not been prearranged with the bank these costs are usually much higher.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f1c3f6fb7361b508b4af80dc2e022a07", "text": "\"After this happened the second time, I wonder if there could be a \"\"catch\"\" on this. No I mean, what is my bank's real motivation for allowing me to spend more money. Credit card companies make money in a few ways. By giving you a higher limit the credit card company hopes you will spend more on the card. This immediately gets them more merchant fees and if they are lucky means you will have to carry the balance for a while earning them interest. If they get really lucky you will miss a payment or two earning them some fees. Of course if they let you borrow too much you might never pay it back. So the credit limit is a balancing act. Letting you borrow more money gives them the potential to make more money but also the potential to lose more money. As you build up a history of paying as agreed they feel comfortable lending you more money.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
6184bfa70165732b2cf52d968d480452	How can I find/compare custodians for my HSA in the United States?	[ { "docid": "e0061a162934e232124915313932503a", "text": "In general, things to look for are: Things to look out for: I'd recommend two places: I'd recommend reading up on HSA's in this related question here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf252386667d75692b8ba238d448b4a4", "text": "\"The account I have found that works best as a HSA is Alliant Credit Union. They have fee-free HSA (no fees for almost all types of transactions or monthly fees) and a fairly decent online banking website. I've been with them for about 5 years now without trouble. FYI - They are a credit union not a bank so you do have to make a small $10 donation to one of their charities to become \"\"eligible\"\" for opening the account.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "7a42529b88b2ac529ec2f6a1d17199d1", "text": "Yes on the August expenses, No on the April; the expenses must have happened after the HSA was opened. Also, note that you're limited to (in 2015) $3350 of deposits to the HSA in a single year, so you can only put $2350 more into the HSA. The IRS form for HSAs looks something like this: 1) How much money did you take from your HSA? 2) How much were your qualified medical expenses? 3) If (1) > (2), give us a bunch of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2295e2e52fd7aa8c40e93939275455eb", "text": "But they aren't, your number fails to compare the US to any other countries in 2013. My numbers do compare the rate in the US to other countries over four different years. Edit: also, it is funny that the rate cost rise in the US has increased since we passed the afordable care act... hmmm....", "title": "" }, { "docid": "103e788a721ad7bd848850ab6c53da9d", "text": "You can't roll her HSA account into yours, but you can roll her HSA account into another HSA account that is hers. A $5 per month fee for an HSA account is ridiculous. Find another account that has no fees, and move the money there. I suggest talking to your local credit union.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a218b268aee293bf7feabf28e3b83c0f", "text": "I fell into a similar situation as you. I spent a lot of time trying to understand this, and the instructions leave a lot to be desired. What follows is my ultimate decisions, and my rationale. My taxes have already been filed, so I will let you know if I get audited! 1.) So in cases like this I try to understand the intent. In this case section III is trying to understand if pre-tax money was added to your HSA that you were not entitled too. As you describe, this does not apply to you. I would think you should be ok not including section III (I didn't.) HOWEVER, I am not a tax-lawyer or even a lawyer! 2.) I do not believe these are medical distributions From the 8889 doc.... Qualified HSA distribution. This is a distribution from a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) that is contributed by your employer directly to your HSA. This is a one-time distribution from any of these arrangements. The distribution is treated as a rollover contribution to the HSA and is subject to the testing period rules shown below. See Pub. 969 for more information. So I don't think you have anything to report here. 3.) As you have no excess this line can just be zero. 4.) From the 8889 doc This is a distribution from your traditional IRA or Roth IRA to your HSA in a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer. Again, I don't think this applies to you so you can enter zero. 5.) This one is the easiest. You can always get this money tax free if you use it for qualified medical expenses. From the 8889 Distributions from an HSA used exclusively to pay qualified medical expenses of the account beneficiary, spouse, or dependents are excludable from gross income. (See the line 15 instructions for information on medical expenses of dependents not claimed on your return.) You can receive distributions from an HSA even if you are not currently eligible to have contributions made to the HSA. However, any part of a distribution not used to pay qualified medical expenses is includible in gross income and is subject to an additional 20% tax unless an exception applies. I hope this helps!", "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": "57e1115d5f30efd13813bb51c89ac504", "text": "Hey, I was thinking back to that X-Ray you got done at the hospital, that you said was cheaper than 90% of the population. I am wondering if maybe that hospital wasn't one of the many that qualify for DSH reimbursement payments. What could have happened is that they saw that you are uninsured, and made a decision that they would only charge you for the portion that they didn't think Medicare / Medicaid would reimburse. If that happened, it wouldn't even show up on your credit report, as the hospital is the one that would file a credit claim. Likely, if they have to go through this a lot, they wouldn't even waste time filing a credit claim, they would just go after a reimbursement through Medicare / Medicaid. And thus, to you, it would just look like a very small bill, but in reality it would only represent a smaller portion of the true bill. I would also wonder, if they do a lot of these, if they aren't also one of the hospitals that article I linked to showed was super-inflating the prices of uninsured in the hopes of getting a larger portion reimbursed.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "77de1f0828136343b16e6cd31563932d", "text": "First, as noted in the comments, you need to pay attention to your network providers. If you are unable to pay exorbitant prices out of pocket, then find an in-network medical provider. if you are unhappy with the in-network provider list (e.g. too distant or not specialists), then discuss switching to another plan or insurer with your employer or broker. Second, many providers will have out of pocket or uninsured price lists, often seen in outdated formats or disused binders. Since you have asked for price lists and not been provided one, I would pursue it with the practice manager (or equivalent, or else a doctor) and ask if they have one. It's possible that the clinic has an out of pocket price list but the front line staff is unaware of it and was never trained on it. Third, if you efforts to secure a price list fail, and you are especially committed to this specific provider, then I would consider engaging in a friendly by direct negotiation with the practice manager or other responsible person. Person they will be amenable to creating a list of prices (if you are particularly proactive and aggressive, you could offer to find out of pocket price lists from other clinics nearby). You could also flat out ask them to charge you a certain fee for office visits (if you do this, try to get some sort of offer or agreed price list in writing). Most medical practices are uncomfortable asking patients for money, so that may mean flat refusal to negotiate but it may also mean surprising willingness to work with you. This route is highly unpredictable before you go down it, and it's dependent on all sorts of things like the ownership structure, business model, and the personalities of the key people there. The easiest answer is to switch clinics. This one sounds very unfriendly to HSA patients.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "30e8471d59412577307653b7213b0f94", "text": "I compared it to NJ, NY and various other states through a database that escapes me now. It's an independent database that was partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and I cannot find it now. I also went through the arbitration opinion between CPS and the union, as another datapoint. I'm sorry. I will try to find it and get back to you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "394e2c739f4870cd08159d90823caba2", "text": "\"I had an HSA for two or three years. I found very routinely that my insurance company had negotiated rates with in-network providers. So as I never hit the deductible, I always had to pay 100% of the negotiated rate, but it was still much less than the providers general rate. Sometimes dramatically so. Like I had some blood and urine tests done and the general rate was $450 but the negotiated rate was only $40. I had laser eye surgery and the general rate was something like $1500 but the negotiated rate was more like $500. Et cetera. Other times it was the same or trivially different, like routine office visits it made no difference. I found that I could call the insurance company and ask for the negotiated rate and they would tell me. When I asked the doctor or the hospital, they either couldn't tell me or they wouldn't. It's possible that the doctor's office doesn't really know what rates they've agreed to, they might have just signed some contract with the insurance company that says, yes, we'll accept whatever you give us. But either way, I had to go to the insurance company to find out. You'd think they'd just publish the list on a web site or something. After all, it's to the insurance company's advantage if you go to the cheapest provider. With a \"\"regular\"\" non-HSA plan, they're share of the total is less. Even with an HSA plan if you go to a cheaper provider you are less likely to hit the deductible. Yes, medical care in the U.S. is rather bizarre in that providers routinely expect you to commit to paying for their services before they will tell you the price. Can you imagine any other industry working this way? Can you imagine buying a car and the dealer saying, \"\"I have no idea what this car costs. If you like it, great, take it and drive it home, and in a few weeks we'll send you a bill. And of course whatever amount we put on that bill you are legally obligated to pay, but we refuse to tell you what that amount will be.\"\" The American Medical Association used to have a policy that they considered it \"\"unethical\"\" for doctors to tell patients the price of treatment in advance. I don't know if they still do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd55f90bd71c1fc6fbf7018fd284c21f", "text": "\"Uniform Transfer to Minors Act (UTMA) and Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) accounts in the United States are accounts that belong to your child, but you can deposit money into. When the child attains his/her majority, the money becomes theirs to spend however they wish. Prior to attaining their majority, a custodian must sign off on withdrawals. Now, they are not foolproof; legally, you can withdraw money if it is spent on the child's behalf, so that can be gamed. What you can do to protect against that is to make another person the custodian (or, perhaps make them joint custodians with yourself, requiring both signatures for withdrawals). UTMA/UGMA accounts do not have to be bank savings accounts; for example, both of my children have accounts at Vanguard which are effectively their college savings accounts. They're invested in various ETFs and similar kinds of investments; you're welcome to choose from a wide variety of options depending on risk tolerance. Typically these accounts have relatively small fees, particularly if you have a reasonable minimum balance (I think USD$10k is a common minimum for avoiding larger fees). If you are looking for something even more secure than a UGMA or UTMA account, you can set up a trust. These have several major differences over the UGMA/UTMA accounts: Some of course consider the second point an advantage, some a disadvantage - we (and Grandma) prefer to let our children make their own choices re: college, while others may not prefer that. Also worth noting as a difference - and concern to think about - in these two. A UGMA or UTMA account that generates income may have taxable events - interest or dividend income. If that's over a relatively low threshhold, about $1050 this year, those earnings will be taxed (on the child's own tax return). If it's over $2100 (this year), those earnings will be taxed at the parents' tax rate (\"\"kiddie tax\"\"). Trusts are slightly different; trusts themselves are taxed, and have their own tax returns. If you do set one of those up, the lawyer who helps you do so should inform you of the tax implications and either hook you up with an accountant or point you to resources to handle the taxes yourself.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e2a2fe0109c08c64a110380f5b02751d", "text": "Much of this is incorrect. Aetna owns Payflex for starters, and it's your EMPLOYER who decides which banks and brokers to offer, not Payflex. An HSA is a checking account with an investment account option after a minimum balance is met. A majority of U.S. employers only OFFER an HSA option but don't contribute a penny, so you're lucky you get anything. The easy solution is just keep the money that is sent to your HSA checking account in your checking account, and once a year roll it over into a different bank's HSA. The vast majority of banks offer HSAs that have no ties to a particular broker (i.e. Citibank, PNC, Chase). I have all my HSA funds in HSA Bank which is online but services lots of employers. Not true that most payroll deductions or employer contributions go to a single HSA custodian (bank). They might offer a single bank that either contracts with an investment provider or lets you invest anywhere. But most employers making contributions are large or mid-market employers offering multiple banks, and that trend is growing fast because of defined contribution, private exchanges and vendor product redesigns. Basically, nobody likes having a second bank account for their HSA when their home bank offers one.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e11e474ced9934a0a01baefc588fd9f", "text": "It is my understanding that the money in the HSA is yours to keep forever, even if you leave the country. When you leave the country and no longer have an HSA-eligible High Deductible Health Plan, you will no longer be able to contribute new money to your HSA. However, you can still spend the money on eligible medical expenses, even if these expenses are outside the U.S. However, there are a few caveats: The HSA money will remain in a U.S. HSA bank account. You won't be able to transfer the entire account to a new account in your home country without paying taxes and penalty. Therefore, you need to have a mechanism for accessing and transferring the money from abroad, so that you can reimburse yourself as you have medical expenses, until the HSA account is empty. Even after you leave the U.S., as long as you have the HSA in place, you will need to file a U.S. tax return (form 1040NR) in any year that you have an HSA distribution. If you decide to take the money out without medical expenses, you will need to pay income tax on the money plus a 20% penalty. See How do I withdraw all money from my HSA account as a non-resident? for more information.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1067b2eafc8a402c2c1389c22c2f781", "text": "Ironically, anyone can say anything, but it doesn't make it true. In normal times, the IRS can audit you for 3 years, or up to 6 for certain cases of fraud - From the IRS site - How far back can the IRS go to audit my return? Generally, the IRS can include returns filed within the last three years in an audit. If we identify a substantial error, we may add additional years. We usually don’t go back more than the last six years. HSA spending is reported each year, just like any Schedule A deductions. Each year, I have my charitable receipts, and they are not sent in. They are there in case of audit. I don't need to save them forever, nor does one need their medical bills forever. 3 years. 6 if you wish to be paranoid. The EOBs should be enough. The HSA is unique in that you deposit pretax dollars (like a traditional IRA or 401(k)) yet withdrawals for qualified expenses come out tax free (like a Roth). In my opinion, as long as your medical plan qualifies you for an HSA, I'd maximize its use. The older you get, the more bills you'll have, and at some point, you'll be grateful to your younger self that you did this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9fa722d5b542e019e1cfa588bc41bc6b", "text": "You can open an HSA account with any financial institution that you like, and roll over the money from your current account into the new one. Since you are no longer in a High Deductible Health Plan, you can't contribute any new money into an HSA, but you can still spend the money in your HSA on eligible medical expenses, until it is gone. There are lots of things that you can spend HSA money on, so there is no need to cash out and take on taxes and penalties. Yes, there are HSA accounts that don't charge ongoing maintenance fees. Check with a local credit union; they usually have no-fee HSA accounts.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c6ec4c6e33b1f072622f1c14cf686071", "text": "Paytrust seems to be the only game in town. We've changed banks several times over the last 15 years and I can tell you that using a bank's bill pay service locks you in, big time. I loved paytrust because I could make one change if we changed banks. If you're using a bank directly for your bills, the ides of recreating your payee list is daunting.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
a5e7aaa6fa1242043bb37c00c028fd7d	Can I buy and sell a house quickly to access the money in a LISA?	[ { "docid": "c4407d9f292c081ed6f437edc514c882", "text": "\"I've got £476,000 but the maximum house price is £450,000. What happens to the £26,000. Does it stay there with ~6% interest (and no bonus of course), and would be available when I retire at around 75 (there would be about £106,000 by then)? Yes, anything you don't withdraw for your house purchase stays in the Lifetime ISA and keeps growing there. Also you do keep the bonus on it, which was paid at the time you subscribed, unless you make a withdrawal before age 60. After age 60 you can withdraw and keep the bonus. Note that you need to be buying with a mortgage to be allowed to use the lifetime ISA money (without penalty). This is mentioned on the gov.uk website as well as in the actual regulations that establish lifetime ISAs (search for \"\"first time residential purchase\"\" and look at clause (6)). That would mean you'd need to withdraw even less than the £450K and artificially borrow the rest. All that said, I suspect the £450K limit would be raised by 2049, given inflation. Can I buy a house and \"\"quickly\"\" sell it again, to simply access the money, The regulations say that on completion of the purchase, you must \"\"occupy the land as their only or main residence\"\" (there are a few exceptions, such as if it's still being built, or if you are at the time posted abroad by the government, but essentially you have to move in as soon as possible). There's no time limit stated in the regulations, so in theory you could move in and then sell quite fast, but personally I'd be nervous about this being seen as not genuinely intending it to be my main residence. In theory you could be prosecuted for fraud if you claimed a valid withdrawal when it wasn't, though given the wording of the regulations it looks like you'd be complying with the letter of the law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b53f7aa9e406ea773a4b45621660c971", "text": "Your first home can be up to £450,000 today. But that figure is unlikely to stay the same over 40 years. The government would need to raise it in line with inflation otherwise in 40 years you won't be able to buy quite so much with it. If inflation averages 2% over your 40 year investment period say, £450,000 would buy you roughly what £200,000 would today. Higher rates of inflation will reduce your purchasing power even faster. You pay stamp duty on a house. For a house worth £450,000 that would be around £12,500. There are also estate agent's fees (typically 1-2% of the purchase price, although you might be able to do better) and legal fees. If you sell quickly you'd only be able to access the balance of the money less all those taxes and fees. That's quite a bit of your bonus lost so why did you tie your money up in a LISA for all those years instead of investing in the stock market directly? One other thing to note is that you buy a LISA from your post tax income. You pay into a pension using your pre-tax income so if you're investing for your retirement then a pension will start with a 20% bonus if you're a lower rate taxpayer and a whopping 40% bonus if you're a higher rate taxpayer. If you're a higher rate taxpayer a pension is much better value.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "a124946eb7dc8c8a9cb3c3cc6b64bf69", "text": "\"As others have said, congratulations on saving up 75K in cash while seemingly not neglecting other areas of personal finance. Considering that only 15% of Americans have more than 10K saved this is quite a feat. source If you sell your old house, and buy the new one you will still be in really good financial shape. No need to comment further. Renting your current home and buying a new home introduces a great amount of risk into your life. The risk in this case is mitigated by cash. As others have pointed out, you will need to save a lot more to remove an acceptable amount of risk. Here is what I see: So without paying off your existing house I would see a minimum savings account balance of about double of what you have now. Once you purchase the new house, the amount would be reduced by the down payment, so you will only have about 50K sitting around. The rental emergency fund may be a little light depending on how friendly your state is to landlords. Water heaters break, renters don't pay, and properties can sit vacant. Also anytime you move into a new business there will be mistakes made that are solved by writing checks. Do you have experience running rentals? You might be better off to sell your existing home, and move into a more expensive home than what you are suggesting. You can continue to win at money without introducing a new factor into your life. Alternatively, if you are \"\"bitten by the real estate bug\"\" you could mitigate a lot risk by buying a property that is of similar value to your current home or even less expensive. You can then choose which home to live in that makes the most financial sense. For example some choose to live in the more dilapidated home so they can do repairs as time permits. To me upgrading the home you live in, and renting an expensivish home for a rental is too much to do in such a short time frame. It is assuming far too much risk far to quickly for a person with your discipline. You will get there.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e4c446b7f403ed97c8398ceb13ce54f", "text": "I'm going to make an educated guess on #1. Money markets invest in bonds with a very short time to maturity. An MMA at a bank will be invested in government bonds. Yields on these bonds are really low right now. Thus the yield on that MMA is going to be pretty low. When you make a deposit in a savings account, the bank uses some of that money to lend back out to its customers in the form of car loans, mortgages, etc. These rates are higher, so the bank is willing to pay you a bit more than the yield MMA so they can use your money for these loans. For #2, your time window is short, so there aren't really a lot of options for you. Keeping your money where it is will actually cost you money in fees. You can do as I suggested in my comment above: close the current savings account that's hitting you with fees and open a (free) high yield savings account. You might get 1.1%. If you average $60k in the account over the next 6 months you'll earn $200-250 after taxes. You didn't ask about CDs, but lately shorter term CDs are paying less than savings accounts. Going out to a year will get you just above the rate on a high yield savings account; two years just a little more. These are outside your goal window, so they aren't an option for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "51863cda125d76edb58e5d99691c7392", "text": "\"As you've observed, when you're dealing with that amount of money, you're going to have to give up FDIC guarantees. That means that keeping the money in a bank account carries some risk with it: if that particular bank goes bust, you could lose most of your money. There are a few options to stretch the FDIC limit such as CDARS, but likely can't handle your hypothetical $800 million. So, what's a lucky winner to do? There are a few options, including treasury securities, money market funds, and more general capital investments such as stocks and bonds. Which one(s) are best depend on what your goals are, and what kind of risks you find acceptable. Money in the bank has two defining characteristics: its value is very stable, and it is liquid (meaning you can spend it very easily, whenever you want, without incurring costs). Treasury securities and money market funds each focus on one of these characteristics. A treasury security is a piece of paper (or really, an electronic record) saying that the US Federal Government owes you money and when they will pay it back. They are very secure in that the government has never missed a payment, and will move heaven and earth to make sure they won't miss one in the future (even taking into account recent political history). You can buy and sell them on an open market, either through a broker or directly on the Treasury's website. The major downside of these compared to a bank account is that they're not as liquid as cash: you own specific amounts of specific kinds of securities, not just some number of dollars in an account. The government will pay you guaranteed cash on specified dates; if you need cash on different dates, you will need to sell the securities in the open market and the price will be subject to market fluctuations. The other \"\"cash-like\"\" option is money market funds. These are a type of mutual fund offered by financial companies. These funds take your money and spread it out over a wide variety of very low risk, very short term investments, with the goal of ensuring that the full value will never go down and is available at any time. They are very liquid: you can typically transfer cash quickly and easily to a normal bank account, write checks directly, and sometimes even use \"\"online bill pay\"\"-like features. They have a very good track record for stability, too, but no one is guaranteeing them against something going terribly wrong. They are lower risk than a (non-FDIC-insured) bank account, since the investments are spread out across many institutions. Beyond those two somewhat \"\"cash-like\"\" options, there are of course other, more general investments such as stocks, bonds, and real estate. These other options trade away some degree of stability, liquidity, or both, in exchange for better expected returns.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "298a3463016470759c63b56f5d689734", "text": "What you are suggesting will not work. Banks have strict guidelines about what they can and cannot do with an FHA loan property. Remember the FHA is only an insurance policy to the bank saying that if you default they will cover a high percentage of the loan. The bank won't take the risk of violating their insurance policy and the government refusing to pay them off if you default. Instead, consider doing a creative sale on your property, maybe a rent to own deal or owner financing. As long as you pay the mortgage the bank won't even know you don't live there and you can rent the house out to someone who eventually will buy it after the timeframe expires. Meanwhile you can go and get a new home or condo either thru regular financing or owner financing(search the internet to see how to do this) and you can use owner financing until you complete the sale of the first house. Otherwise just tough it out in the house you are in until the time expires and then sell. You made no mention of the property value but I am assuming if you bought it 3 years ago that you may have a little equity. Pleas note that if you sell at that time though you will likely have to come out of cash because your equity won't cover the realtor fee and closing cost. But if you do the rent to own I suggested earlier you can sell at a slightly higher price making sure you can cover those cost. I realize this answer is a little out the box but I deal with people who don't want properties all day and I have completed transactions like this many times. Good Luck and God Bless!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0cdc97239023a6be5e41ff19ea081cc9", "text": "If you are concerned about FDIC coverage, then yes, you can spread your money across multiple banks. The limit is $250k, so after you invest in property, 4 banks should do it. That having been said, in my opinion, it would be a waste to keep all this money in a bank's savings account. You will slowly lose value over time due to inflation. I suggest you spend a little money on an independent fee-based investment advisor. Choose someone who will teach you about investing in mutual funds, so you can feel comfortable with it. He or she should take into account your tolerance for risk, look at your goals, and help you come up with a low cost plan for investing your money. It's certainly okay to keep the money in a bank short-term, but don't wait too long; take steps toward putting that money to work for you.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c42f2eb5810f7b396be829f8e997dfd", "text": "\"Outside of broadly hedging interest rate risk as I mentioned in my other answer, there may be a way that you could do what you are asking more directly: You may be able to commit to purchasing a house/condo in a pre-construction phase, where your bank may be willing to lock in a mortgage for you at today's rates. The mortgage wouldn't actually be required until you take ownership from the builder, but the rates would be set in advance. Some caveats for this approach: (1) You would need to know the house/condo you want to move into in advance, and you would be committing to that move today. (2) The bank may not be willing to commit to rates that far in advance. (3) Construction would likely take far less than 5 years, unless you are buying a condo (which is the reason I mention condos specifically). (4) You are also committing to the price you are paying for your property. This hedges you somewhat against price fluctuation in your future area, but because you currently own property, you are already somewhat hedged against property price fluctuation, meaning this is taking on additional risk. The 'savings' associated with this plan as they relate to your original question (which are really just hedging against interest rate fluctuations) are far outweighed by the external pros and cons associated with buying property in advance like this. By that I mean - if it was something else you were already considering, this might be a (small) tick in the \"\"Pro\"\" column, but otherwise is far too committal / complex to be considered for interest rate hedging on its own.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3d352dd687331678cf1e9b26bddfc96b", "text": "\"1) Don't buy a house as an investment. Buy a house because you've reached the point in your life where you don't expect to move in the next five years and you'd prefer to own a house (with its advantages/disadvantages) than to rent (with its advantages/disadvantages). Thinking of houses primarily as investments is what caused the housing bubble, crash, and Great Recession. 2) Before buying a house for cash, look at the available mortgage interest rates versus market rate of return. Owning the house outright is slightly lower stress, but using the house as the basis for a \"\"leveraged investment\"\" may be financially wiser. (I compromised; I paid 50% down and took a mortgage for the other 50%.) 3) 1 year is short-term. Your money doesn't belong in the market if you're going to need it in the short term. If you really intend to pull it back out that soon, I'd stick with CD/money-market kinds of instruments. 4) Remember that while a house is illiquid, it is possible to take out home equity loans... so money you put into a house isn't completely inaccessible. You just can't move elsewhere as easily.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c64c04ac063f3a6a54a458c41dfc324e", "text": "Is this just appealing to potential sellers' need for instant gratification, or am I missing something here? Timing matters for some people. If you are moving cross country, it's important to be able to sell your house quickly if you want to sell. This can also matter if the seller is interested in buying another home. If their existing home takes three months to sell and they have already picked a home they want, it can make the timing of funds transfers quite inconvenient - often people need to sell their existing home in order to make a down payment on a future home.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2df00d72437669b65c71a5bda02b87fd", "text": "\"I've never heard of a loan product like that. Yes, if they keep the funds in an account, it is no risk to the bank, but they would essentially need to go through the loan process twice for the same loan: when you pick a house, they need to reevaluate everything, along with appraising and approving the house. Even if you did find a bank that would do this for you, there are a few problems with this scheme. You would be paying interest before you have a need for this money, negating the savings you might achieve if the interest rates go up. In addition, your \"\"balance\"\" will go down as \"\"payments\"\" are deducted from your loan, and when you finally find a home to buy, you might not have enough for the house you want. You'll need to borrow more than you need, which will further negate any possible savings. It is impossible to know how fast rates will climb. If I were you, I would stick to saving for your down payment, and just get the best rate you can when you are ready to buy. Another potential idea for you is to lock an interest rate. When you apply for a mortgage, the interest rate is often locked for as much as 60 days, to protect the borrower in the event that the rates go up. You could ask the bank if you can pay a fee to lock the rate even longer. I don't know if that is possible or not. And, of course, the fee would eat into your potential savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a192109b0e014b9a0563b0d88a7bb6d3", "text": "You can definitely get access to cash during the selling of your home and buying of a new one. Think of the home sale and buy as two distinct transactions. As long as your mortgage qualification doesn't depend on all the proceeds from the first sale being rolled into the new mortgage, you'll be fine.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9cac2f8096f2ec2234d0b587551f30b9", "text": "You could buy debt/notes or other instruments that pay out periodically. Some examples are If there is an income stream you can discount the present value and then buy it/own the rights to income stream. Typically you pay a discounted price for the face value and then receive the income stream over time.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7b48cbbd4f123d229b5a0c52363ebd1d", "text": "\"I use a \"\"sinking\"\" fund. If you want to buy a $1000 bicycle, you put $100 per month into a savings account. 10 months from now, you can buy your $1000 bicycle. If you get a $500 windfall, you can either put it in the sinking fund and buy the item earlier. If you lose some income, you can put $50 per month in the fund.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7758c3023162cce1343902f8f79088b2", "text": "You don't say why you want to move. Without knowing that, it is hard to recommend a course of action. Anyway... The sequence of events for an ECONOMICAL outcome in a strong market is as follows: (1) You begin looking for a new house (2) You rent storage and put large items into storage (3) You rent an apartment and move into the apartment (4) The house now being empty you can easily do any major cleaning and renovations needed to sell it (5) You sell the house (and keep looking for a new house while you do so). Since the house is empty it will sell a lot more easily than if you are in it. (6) You invest the money you get from selling the house (7) You liquidate your investment and buy the new house that you find. If you are lucky, the market will have declined in the meantime and you will get a good deal on the new house in addition to the money you made on your investment. (8) You move your stuff out of storage into the new house. There are other possibilities that involve losing a lot of money. The sequence of events above will make money for you, possibly a LOT of money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ab63ebccd465e91061835ecbb7464e7b", "text": "First, what's the reason? Why do you have that much in cash at all - are you concerned about market volatility, are you planning to buy a house, do you have tens of millions of dollars and this is your slush fund? Are you a house flipper and this is part of business for you? If you need the money for short term use - ie, you're buying a house in cash next month - then as long as you're in a sound bank (one of the big national ones, for example) it seems reasonable. You can never predict a crash like 2008, but it seems unlikely that Chase or Citibank will go under in the next few weeks. If you like to have a cash position, then split the money among multiple banks. Buy a CD at one major bank with some of the amount. My in-laws have a trust which is partially invested in CDs, and they use multiple banks for this purpose to keep their accounts fully insured. Each separate bank you're covered up to 250k, so if you have $150k at Chase and $150k at a local bank, you're covered. (You're also covered in a much larger amount - up to 1MM potentially - if you are married, as you can have a separate account each for $250k and a joint account up to $500k.) Otherwise, why do you have that much in cash? You should invest it in something that will return more than inflation, at a minimum... Edit post-clarifications: $350k is around my level of 'Maybe, maybe not'. You're risking $100k on a pretty low risk (assuming this isn't a small local bank, and even those are pretty low still). In order to remove that risk you have to do something active - ie, take 100k somewhere else, open a new bank account, etc. - which isn't exactly the hardest thing in the world, but it does take effort. Is it worth the 0.001% chance (entirely made up) you lose the 100k? That's $10, if you agree with that risk chance. Up to you. It wouldn't be particularly hard, though, to open an account with an online bank, deposit $100k in there in a 6 month CD, then pay the IRS from your other account and when the 6 month CD expires take the cash back into your active account. Assuming you're not planning on buying a house in the next six months this should be fine, I'd think (and even then you'd still have $150k for the downpayment up front, which is enough to buy a $750k house w/o PMI). Additionally, as several commenters note: if you can reasonably do so, and your money won't be making significant interest, you might choose to pay your taxes now rather than later. This removes the risk entirely; the likely small interest you earn over 3 months may be similar to the amount you'd spend (mostly of your time, plus possibly actual expenses) moving it to another bank. If you're making 2% or 3% this may not be true, but if you're in a 0.25% account like my accounts are, $100k * 0.25% * 0.25 is $62.50, after all.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d98a1a97eb6179caef1f1e5c9c6958c7", "text": "\"Not at all impossible. What you need is Fundamental Analysis and Relationship with your investment. If you are just buying shares - not sure you can have those. I will provide examples from my personal experience: My mother has barely high school education. When she saw house and land prices in Bulgaria, she thought it's impossibly cheap. We lived on rent in Israel, our horrible apartment was worth $1M and it was horrible. We could never imagine buying it because we were middle class at best. My mother insisted that we all sell whatever we have and buy land and houses in Bulgaria. One house, for example, went from $20k to EUR150k between 2001 and 2007. But we knew Bulgaria, we knew how to buy, we knew lawyers, we knew builders. The company I currently work for. When I joined, share prices were around 240 (2006). They are now (2015) at 1500. I didn't buy because I was repaying mortgage (at 5%). I am very sorry I didn't. Everybody knew 240 is not a real share price for our company - an established (+30 years) software company with piles of cash. We were not a hot startup, outsiders didn't invest. Many developers and finance people WHO WORK IN THE COMPANY made a fortune. Again: relationship, knowledge! I bought a house in the UK in 2012 - everyone knew house prices were about to go up. I was lucky I had a friend who was a surveyor, he told me: \"\"buy now or lose money\"\". I bought a little house for 200k, it is now worth 260k. Not double, but pretty good money! My point is: take your investment personally. Don't just dump money into something. Once you are an insider, your risk will be almost mitigated and you could buy where you see an opportunity and sell when you feel you are near the maximal real worth of your investment. It's not hard to analyse, it's hard to make a commitment.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e5a63c4a98f3d11704685ea952d39daf	Is the interest on money borrowed on margin in/for an RRSP considered tax deductible?	[ { "docid": "8c25a3bed4451bce533aa676d2a3bc74", "text": "I believe your question is based on a false premise. First, no broker, that I know of, provides an RRSP account that is a margin account. RRSP accounts follow cash settlement rules. If you don't have the cash available, you can't buy a stock. You can't borrow money from your broker within your RRSP. If you want to borrow money to invest in your RRSP, you must borrow outside from another source, and make a contribution to your RRSP. And, if you do this, the loan interest is not considered tax deductible. In order for investment loan interest to be tax deductible, you'd need to invest outside of a registered type of account, e.g. using a regular non-tax-sheltered account. Even then, what you can deduct may be limited. Refer to CRA - Line 221 - Carrying charges and interest expenses: You can claim the following carrying charges and interest [...] [...] You cannot deduct on line 221 any of the following amounts:", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "f5d03797d7499736c830449098a393c1", "text": "\"Is all interest on a first time home deductible on taxes? What does that even mean? If I pay $14,000 in taxes will My taxes be $14,000 less. Will my taxable income by that much less? If you use the standard deduction in the US (assuming United States), you will have 0 benefit from a mortgage. If you itemize deductions, then your interest paid (not principal) and your property tax paid is deductible and reduces your income for tax purposes. If your marginal tax rate is 25% and you pay $10000 in interest and property tax, then when you file your taxes, you'll owe (or get a refund) of $2500 (marginal tax rate * (amount of interest + property tax)). I have heard the term \"\"The equity on your home is like a bank\"\". What does that mean? I suppose I could borrow using the equity in my home as collateral? If you pay an extra $500 to your mortgage, then your equity in your house goes up by $500 as well. When you pay down the principal by $500 on a car loan (depreciating asset) you end up with less than $500 in value in the car because the car's value is going down. When you do the same in an appreciating asset, you still have that money available to you though you either need to sell or get a loan to use that money. Are there any other general benefits that would drive me from paying $800 in rent, to owning a house? There are several other benefits. These are a few of the positives, but know that there are many negatives to home ownership and the cost of real estate transactions usually dictate that buying doesn't make sense until you want to stay put for 5-7 years. A shorter duration than that usually are better served by renting. The amount of maintenance on a house you own is almost always under estimated by new home owners.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "513e076455dc7595ae4eb802a5b8278f", "text": "\"Regardless of what the credit reporting agencies or brokerages say, the fact is that brokerage margin is not reported to the credit reporting agencies. I have \"\"borrowed\"\" hundreds of thousands of dollars on margin from dozens of brokerages over the years and have never seen a dime of it reported nor have I ever heard of it ever being reported for someone else. ...and it's easy to see why this would be so because \"\"borrowing\"\" on margin isn't really borrowing at all because you always must have positive equity in the account at all times. So you aren't borrowing anything, you just have an investment contract that determines your gains/losses as if you had borrowed (in other words, it's simulated).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "01146864ca51d161601ebe09cd8359b9", "text": "First of all, this is a situation when a consultation with a EA working with S-Corporations in California, CA-licensed CPA or tax preparer (California licenses tax preparers as well) is in order. I'm neither of those, and my answer is not a tax advice of any kind. You're looking at schedule CA line 17 (see page 42 in the 540NR booklet). The instructions refer you to form 3885A. You need to read the instructions carefully. California is notorious for not conforming to the Federal tax law. Specifically, to the issue of the interest attributable to investment in S-Corp, I do not know if CA conforms. I couldn't find any sources saying that it doesn't, but then again - I'm not a professional. It may be that there's an obscure provision invalidating this deduction, living in California myself - I wouldn't be surprised. So I suggest hiring a CA-licensed tax preparer to do this tax return for you, at least for the first year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "348ecf0fe173c503a0275e31aa820056", "text": "Revenue Canada allows for some amount of tax deferral via several methods. The point is that none of them allow you to avoid tax, but by deferring from years when you have high income to years when you have lower income allows you to realize less total tax paid due to the marginal rate for personal income tax. The corporate dividend approach (as explained in another answer) is one way. TFSAs are another way, but as you point out, they have limits. Since you brought TFSAs into your question: About the best and easiest tax deferral option available in Canada is the RRSP. If you don't have a company pension, you can contribute something like 18% of your income. If you have a pension plan, you may still be able to contribute to an RRSP as well, but the maximum contribution amount will be lower. The contribution lowers your taxable income which can save you tax. Interest earned on the equity in your RRSP isn't taxed. Tax is only paid on money drawn from the plan because it is deemed income in that year. They are intended for retirement, but you're allowed to withdraw at any time, so if you have little or no income in a year, you can draw money from your RRSP. Tax is withheld, which you may or may not get back depending on your taxable income for that year. You can think of it as a way to level your income and lower your legitimate tax burden", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6d8fae7ab371dc25faf4139cdf4ce360", "text": "If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "593cbd452c7286b4358b8973a7511d16", "text": "\"First off, the \"\"mortgage interest is tax deductible\"\" argument is a red herring. What \"\"tax deductible\"\" sounds like it means is \"\"if I pay $100 on X, I can pay $100 less on my taxes\"\". If that were true, you're still not saving any money overall, so it doesn't help you any in the immediate term, and it's actually a bad idea long-term because that mortgage interest compounds, but you don't pay compound interest on taxes. But that's not what it actually means. What it actually means is that you can deduct some percentage of that $100, (usually not all of it,) from your gross income, (not from the final amount of tax you pay,) which reduces your top-line \"\"income subject to taxation.\"\" Unless you're just barely over the line of a tax bracket, spending money on something \"\"tax deductible\"\" is rarely a net gain. Having gotten that out of the way, pay down the mortgage first. It's a very simple matter of numbers: Anything you pay on a long-term debt is money you would have paid anyway, but it eliminates interest on that payment (and all compoundings thereof) from the equation for the entire duration of the loan. So--ignoring for the moment the possibility of extreme situations like default and bank failure--you can consider it to be essentially a guaranteed, risk-free investment that will pay you dividends equal to the rate of interest on the loan, for the entire duration of the loan. The mortgage is 3.9%, presumably for 30 years. The car loan is 1.9% for a lot less than that. Not sure how long; let's just pull a number out of a hat and say \"\"5 years.\"\" If you were given the option to invest at a guaranteed 3.9% for 30 years, or a guaranteed 1.9% for 5 years, which would you choose? It's a no-brainer when you look at it that way.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "962afc559efc7ebe9dc4e91ee1f8af04", "text": "The answer is simple. You can generally claim a deduction for an expense if that expense was used to derive an income. Most business expenses are used to derive profits and income, most individual expenses are not. Of course social policy sometimes gets in the way and allows for deductions where they usually wouldn't be allowed. Regarding the interest on a mortgage being deductible whilst the principal isn't, that is because it is the interest which is the annual expense. By the way deductions for mortgage interest in the USA for a house you live in is only allowed due to social policy, as there is no income (rent) being produced here, unlike with an investment property.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3105ab8826e6eb604c6406d337dbae3", "text": "You can claim a deduction only if all of your business is conducted from the home, i.e. your home is your principal place of business - not just if you work from home sometimes. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has pretty strict guidelines listed here, but once you're sure you qualify for a deduction, the next step would be to determine what portion of your home qualifies. You cannot attempt to deduct your entire mortgage simply because you run your business out of your home. The portion of your mortgage and other related & allowable home expense deductions has to be pro-rated to be equal to or less than the portion of your home you use for business. Simply put, if your business is operated out of a 120 sq-ft self-contained space, and your home's total square-footage is 2400 sq-ft, you can deduct 5% of your expenses (120/2,400 = 0.05). Hope this helps!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03a37f15aa46d8411b09400ba98544cd", "text": "This question is indeed rather complicated. Let's simplify it a little bit. Paying down your mortgage makes sense if your expected return in the rest of your portfolio is less than the cost of the mortgage. In many cases, people may also decide to pay down their mortgage because they are risk-averse and do not like carrying debt. There's no tax benefit to doing so, though; Canada doesn't generally allow you to write off mortgage interest, unlike the U.S. As to keeping money in the corporation or not, I'm not going to address that. I don't have a firm enough understanding of corporate taxation. Canadian Couch Potato advises treating all of your investment assets as one large portfolio. That is what you are trying to do here. However, let's consider a different approach. If you do not have enough money to max out your RRSP or TFSA, you may choose to keep your TFSA for an emergency fund, where the money is kept highly liquid. Keep your cash in an interest-bearing TFSA, or perhaps invest it in the money market, inside your TFSA. Then, use your RRSP for the rest of your investment money, split according to your investment goals. This is not the most tax-efficient approach, but it is nice and simple. But you are looking for the most tax-efficient approach. So, let's assume you have enough to more than max out your TFSA and RRSP contributions, and all of your investments are going toward your retirement, which is at least a decade away. Because you are not taxed on your investment income from RRSPs (until you withdraw the money) or TFSA, it makes sense to hold the least tax-efficient investments there. Tax-advantaged investments such as Canadian equities should be held in your investment accounts outside of TFSA and RRSPs. Again, the Canadian Couch Potato has a great article on where to put your investment assets. That article covers interest, dividends, foreign dividends, and capital gains, as well as RRSPs, RESPs, and TFSAs. That article recommends holding Canadian equities in a taxable account, REITs in a tax-sheltered account (TFSA or RRSP), bonds, GICs, and money-market funds in a tax-sheltered account (as these count as interest). The article goes into rather more detail than this, and is worth checking out. It mentions the 15% withholding tax on US-listed ETFs, for example. In addition to that website, I recommend the following three books: The above three resources strongly advocate passive indexed investments, which I like but not everyone agrees with. All three specifically discuss tax implications, which is why I include them here.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "27a5a5296e910059e806233cc78595fd", "text": "We need more info to give a better answer, but in short: if you assume you will make $0 in other employment income next year, there is a HUGE tax benefit in deferring 50k until next year. Total tax savings would probably be something like $15k [rough estimate]. If you took the RRSP deduction this year, you would save something like 20k this year, but then you would be taxed on it next year if you withdraw it, probably paying another 5k the year after. ie: you would get about the same net tax savings in both years, if you contributed to your RRSP and withdrew next year, vs deferring it to next year. On a non-tax basis, you would benefit by having the cash today, so you could earn investment income on your RRSP, but you would want to go low-risk as you need the money next year, so the most you could earn would be something like 1.5k @ 3%. The real benefit to the RRSP contribution is if you defer your withdrawal into your retirement, because you can further defer your taxes into the future, earning investment income in the meantime. But if you need to withdraw next year, you won't get that opportunity.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0b0630331cf653228dcda6caa4ac50c8", "text": "Talk about coincidence, we just recieved letters from our bank saying that our interest only loans will be going up by 0.46% and if we want to keep our lower rate we will need to change early to P&I. Now our Interest only periods end in 6 months to about 16 months anyway. We have decided to change to P&I early and save on our interest expenses. Why? Because the main purpose of investing is to make money not to save on tax. Even if you are on the highest marginal tax rate for every extra dollar of expenses you spend and claim as a deduction you will only get about 50 cents back through tax savings. If you are on the lowest marginal tax rate your tax savings will reduce to less than 20 cents for every extra dollar spent. If you are investing in order to save on tax you may be investing for the wrong reasons. Your primary reason for investing should be to make money, for wealth creation. A good reason to stay with an Interest only loan for an investment property would be if you require the extra cash flow you would receive compared with an I&P loan.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "582a70982b15333402b93f3bec430a88", "text": "You can defer RRSP deductions like you've suggested. Here's an article from the CBC about it: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/taxseason/story/2010/03/15/f-taxseason-delay.html", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fdf2d38a190b567b108a45c6335bdf81", "text": "I'm a Finance major in Finland and here is how it would go here. As you loan money to the company, the company has no income, but gains an asset and a liability. When the company then uses the money to pay the bills it does have expenses that accumulate to the end of the accounting period where they have to be declared. These expenses are payed from the asset gained and has no effect to the liability. When the company then makes a profit it is taxable. How ever this taxable profit may be deducted from from a tax reserve accumulated over the last loss periods up to ten years. When the company then pays the loan back it is divided in principal and interest. The principal payment is a deduction in the company's liabilities and has no tax effect. The interest payment the again does have effect in taxes in the way of decreasing them. On your personal side giving loan has no effect. Getting the principal back has no effect. Getting interest for the loan is taxable income. When there are documents signifying the giving the loan and accounting it over the years, there should be no problem paying it back.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca816def6c13f526c18f1951bde048f8", "text": "lets sat If I buy a house on company's name, It will declared as expense and will deduct from profit. but I am not sure If I can rent it out as a IT LTD company. that's my questions. Buying a house is not an expense, it is a transfer of assets. The house itself, is an asset. So if you have $100,000 in cash, buy a house for $35,000, your total assets will remain the same ($100,000), but your asset mix will be different (instead of $100,000 in cash, you now have $65,000 in cash, and $35,000 in property). You can expense the costs associated with buying the house (e.g. taxes, interest, legal fees), but the house itself stays on the asset side of your balance sheet. To refine the example above, if you buy the house for $35,000, and pay $5,000 in misc fees related to purchasing the house, your assets are now $95,000 ($60,000 in cash, $35,000 in house): the $5,000 reduction is from the actual fees associated with the purchase. It is these fees that lower your profit. Being not familiar with UK rules, in Canada and the US, and likely the UK, you would then depreciate the house over its useful life. The depreciation expense is deducted from your annual net income. If you rent out the house, what you can do is expense any maintenance fees, taxes, etc., on the house itself. This expense will count as a negative towards the rental income, lowering your effective taxable income from the rental. E.g. rent out a flat at $1,000/month, but your property taxes are $3,500/year, so your net income for tax purposes (i.e. your taxable income in this case) is $12,000-$3,500=$8,500.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "55686ea4f3dfab64ced24d67c643cf55", "text": "Candle stick patterns are generally an indication of possible short term changes in price direction (if a reversal pattern). A doji is such a reversal candle, and should be read as there could be a short term change in the direction of price action. A doji is most effective at peaks or troughs, and the outcome can be a higher probability if occuring during overbought conditions (at the peak) or during oversold conditions (at the trough). So a doji should be used for short term changes in direction and not a total change in the overall trend. Although there could be a doji at the very top of an uptrend or at the very bottom of a downtrend, we wouldn't know it was the change of the trend until price action confirms it. The definition of an uptrend is higher highs and higher lows. The definition of a downtrend is lower lows and lower highs. So an uptrend will not be broken until we have a lower high and confirmed by a lower low, or a lower low confirmed by a lower high. Similarly a downtrend will not be broken until we have a higher low confirmed by a higher high or a higher high followed by a higher low. Another thing to consider is that doji's and other candle stick patters work best when the market is trending, even if they are only short term trends. You should usually wait for confirmation of the change in direction by only taking a long trade if price moves above the high of the doji, or only taking a short trade if price moves below the low of the doji.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
ab87483724591f55c6e344d69fd2ef66	Get interest on $100K by spending only $2K using FOREX rollovers?	[ { "docid": "febf4114d614ef8371b4a237f32ce7e9", "text": "\"I'm smart enough to know that the answer to your questions is 'no'. There is no arbitrage scenario where you can trade currencies and be guaranteed a return. If there were, the thousands of PhD's and quants at hedge funds like DEShaw and Bridgewater would have already figured it out. You're basically trying to come up with a scenario that is risk free yet yields you better than market interest rates. Impossible. I'm not smart enough to know why, but my guess is that your statement \"\"I only need $2k margin\"\" is incorrect. You only need $2k as capital, but you are 'borrowing' on margin the other 98k and you'll need to pay interest on that borrowed amount, every day. You also run the risk of your investment turning sour and the trading firm requiring a higher margin.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cbef79be90e2e82d24e6214699fd271e", "text": "No free lunch You cannot receive risk-free interest on more money than you actually put down. The construct you are proposing is called 'Carry Trade', and will yield you the interest-difference in exchange for assuming currency risk. Negative expectation In the long run one would expect the higher-yielding currency to devalue faster, at a rate that exactly negates the difference in interest. Net profit is therefore zero in the long run. Now factor in the premium that a (forex) broker charges, and now you may expect losses the size of which depends on the leverage chosen. If there was any way that this could reliably produce a profit even without friction (i.e. roll-over, transaction costs, spread), quants would have already arbitraged it away. Intransparancy Additionaly, in my experience true long-term roll-over costs in relation to interest are a lot harder to compute than, for example, the cost of a stock transaction. This makes the whole deal very intransparant. As to the idea of artificially constructing a USD/USD pair: I regret to tell you that such a construct is not possible. For further info, see this question on Carry Trade: Why does Currency Carry Trade work?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "605802582d7668a70b363758d5881d8e", "text": "I work at a FOREX broker, and can tell you that what you want to do is NOT possible. If someone is telling you it is, they're lying. You could (in theory) make money from the SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) if you go both short and long on the same currency, but there are various reasons why this never works. Furthermore, I don't know of any brokers that are paying positive SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) on any currency right now.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93ed9100864a8c4146441b8c7bc0dab5", "text": "Now, is there any clever way to combine FOREX transactions so that you receive the US interest on $100K instead of the $2K you deposited as margin? Yes, absolutely. But think about it -- why would the interest rates be different? Imagine you're making two loans, one for 10,000 USD and one for 10,000 CHF, and you're going to charge a different interest rate on the two loans. Why would you do that? There is really only one reason -- you would charge more interest for the currency that you think is less likely to hold its value such that the expected value of the money you are repaid is the same. In other words, currencies pay a higher interest when their value is expected to go down and currencies pay a lower interest when their value is expected to go up. So yes, you could do this. But the profits you make in interest would have to equal the expected loss you would take in the devaluation of the currency. People will only offer you these interest rates if they think the loss will exceed the profit. Unless you know better than them, you will take a loss.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "1611faea12bf19b2154ee123778d95d2", "text": "\"HSBC, Hang Seng, and other HK banks had a series of special savings account offers when I lived in HK a few years ago. Some could be linked to the performance of your favorite stock or country's stock index. Interest rates were higher back then, around 6% one year. What they were effectively doing is taking the interest you would have earned and used it to place a bet on the stock or index in question. Technically, one way this can be done, for instance, is with call options and zero coupon bonds or notes. But there was nothing to strategize with once the account was set up, so the investor did not need to know how it worked behind the scenes... Looking at the deposit plus offering in particular, this one looks a little more dangerous than what I describe. See, now we are in an economy of low almost zero interest rates. So to boost the offered rate the bank is offering you an account where you guarantee the AUD/HKD rate for the bank in exchange for some extra interest. Effectively they sell AUD options (or want to cover their own AUD exposures) and you get some of that as extra interest. Problem is, if the AUD declines, then you lose money because the savings and interest will be converted to AUD at a contractual rate that you are agreeing to now when you take the deposit plus account. This risk of loss is also mentioned in the fine print. I wouldn't recommend this especially if the risks are not clear. If you read the fine print, you may determine you are better off with a multicurrency account, where you can change your HK$ into any currency you like and earn interest in that currency. None of these were \"\"leveraged\"\" forex accounts where you can bet on tiny fluctuations in currencies. Tiny being like 1% or 2% moves. Generally you should beware anything offering 50:1 or more leverage as a way to possibly lose all of your money quickly. Since you mentioned being a US citizen, you should learn about IRS form TD F 90-22.1 (which must be filed yearly if you have over $10,000 in foreign accounts) and google a little about the \"\"foreign account tax compliance act\"\", which shows a shift of the government towards more strict oversight of foreign accounts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0848988ee6bf5d902b7090dcbc46de00", "text": "The location does matter in the case where you introduce currency risk; by leaving you US savings in USD, you're basically working on the assumption that the USD will not lose value against the EUR - if it does and you live in the EUR-zone, you've just misplaced some of your capital. Of course that also works the other way around if the USD appreciates against the EUR, you gained some money.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "28f5fd1be3e440ee825ed5e611e92156", "text": "\"My visa would put the goods on the current monthly balance which is no-interest, but the cash part becomes part of the immediate interest-bearing sum. There is no option for getting cash without paying immediate interest, except perhaps for buying something then immediately returning it, but most merchants will do a refund to the card instead of cash in hand. This is in New Zealand, other regions may have different rules. Also, if I use the \"\"cheque\"\" or \"\"savings\"\" options at the eftpos machine instead of the \"\"credit\"\" option, then I can have cash immediately, withdrawn from my account, with no interest charge. However the account has to have sufficient balance to do so.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d4617c15d1388f86ec15ea8a6de965f5", "text": "An offset account is simply a savings account which is linked to a loan account. Instead of earning interest in the savings account and thus having to pay tax on the interest earned, it reduces the amount of interest you have to pay on the loan. Example of a 100% offset account: Loan Amount $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $80,000 loan balance. Example of a 50% offset account: Loan Account $100,000, Offset Balance $20,000; you pay interest on the loan based on an effective $90,000 loan balance. The benefit of an offset account is that you can put all your income into it and use it to pay all your expenses. The more the funds in the offset account build up the less interest you will pay on your loan. You are much better off having the offset account linked to the larger loan because once your funds in the offset increase over $50,000 you will not receive any further benefit if it is linked to the smaller loan. So by offsetting the larger loan you will end up saving the most money. Also, something extra to think about, if you are paying interest only your loan balance will not change over the interest only period and your interest payments will get smaller and smaller as your offset account grows. On the other hand, if you are paying principal and interest then your loan balance will reduce much faster as your offset account increases. This is because with principal and interest you have a minimum amount to pay each month (made up of a portion of principal and a portion of interest). As the offset account grows you will be paying less interest, so a larger portion of the principal is paid off each month.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "924c06ef4114ce9a9f421443152b2e88", "text": "\"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "889b617c42eb36f14a26d3441f38a8f3", "text": "Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "fff62a931e555cafd9c3710b6eda3f33", "text": "\"What about the escudo balance in my checking account in Cabo Verde? Are the escudos that I held for months or years, before eventually deciding to change to dollars, considered an investment? Don't know. You tell us. Investment defined as an activity taken to produce income. Did you put the money in the checking account with a full expectation of profits to be made from that? Or you only decided that it is an investment in retrospective, after the result is known, because it provides you more tax benefit? To me it sounds like you have two operating currencies and you're converting between them. Doesn't sound like an investment. Generally, from my experience, bank accounts are not considered investments (even savings accounts aren't). Once you deposit into a CD or bond or money market - you get a cash-equivalent which can be treated as an investment. But that's my personal understanding, if there are large amounts involved, I'd suggest talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA specializing on expats in your area. Pub 54 is really a reference for only the most trivial of the questions an expat may have. It doesn't even begin to describe the complexity of the monstrosity that is called \"\"The US Tax Code for Expats and Foreigners\"\".\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cd25cc79df75f8dd9273d36f27a005e1", "text": "Technically, yes, you can do this. It's a form of arbitrage: you're taking advantage of a small price difference between two markets. But is it worth the hassle of keeping on top of the overdraft and making sure you don't incur any accidental penalties or fees? Interest rates are super low, and floating £1000 or £2000, you're only going to generate £10-20 per year in a basic savings account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e673718faaf37ffb0a789565e6e80b43", "text": "You would need to check with Bank as it varies from Bank to Bank. You can break the FD's. Generally you don't loose the interest you have earned for 1 years, however the rate of interest will be reduced. i.e. if the rate was 7% for 1 year FD and 8% for 2 years FD, when you break after a year you will get only 7%. Generally this can happen in few hours but definitely in 2 days. You can get a Loan against FD's. Generally the rate of interest is 2% higher than FD rate. There is also initial processing fee, etc. Check with the Bank, it may take few days to set things up.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca428c4ae49ef766ae9176b7c2efa90a", "text": "I won't make any assumptions about the source of the money. Typically however, this can be an emotional time and the most important thing to do is not act rashly. If this is an amount of money you have never seen before, getting advice from a fee only financial adviser would be my second step. The first step is to breathe and promise yourself you will NOT make any decisions about this money in the short term. Better to have $100K in the bank earning nearly zero interest than to spend it in the wrong way. If you have to receive the money before you can meet with an adviser, then just open a new savings account at your bank (or credit union) and put the money in there. It will be safe and sound. Visit http://www.napfa.org/ and interview at least three advisers. With their guidance, think about what your goals are. Do you want to invest and grow the money? Pay off debt? Own a home or new large purchase? These are personal decisions, but the adviser might help you think of goals you didn't imagine Create a plan and execute it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7395386482e12327b4aac3ac117887ab", "text": "You can use Norbet's Gambit to convert between USD and CAD either direction. I have never personally done this, but I am planning to convert some CAD to USD soon, so I can invest in USD index funds without paying the typical 2% conversion fee. You must be okay with waiting a few days for the trades to settle, and okay with the fact that the exchange rate will almost certainly change before you sell the shares in the opposite currency. The spread on DLR.TO is about 0.01% - 0.02%, and you also have brokerage commissions and fees. If you use a discount broker the commissions and fees can be quite low. EG. To transfer $5000 USD to CAD using Questrade, you would deposit the USD into a Questrade account and then purchase ~500 units of DLR.U.TO , since it is an ETF there is no commission on the purchase. Then you request that they journal the shares over to DLR.TO and you sell them in CAD (will have about a $5 fee in CAD, and lose about $1 on the spread) and withdraw. The whole thing will have cost you $6 CAD, in lieu of ~$100 you would pay if you did a straightforward conversion with a 2% exchange fee. The difference in fees scales up as the amount you transfer increases. Someone has posted the chat log from when they requested their shares be journaled from DLR.TO to DLR.U.TO here. It looks like it was quite straightforward. Of course there is a time-cost, and the nuisance of signing up for an maintaining an account with a broker if you don't have one already. You can do it on non discount-brokers, but it will only be worth it to do it with a larger amount of money, since the commissions are larger. Note: If you have enough room to hold the CAD amount in your TFSA and will still have that much room at the end of the calendar year, I recommend doing the exchange in a TFSA account. The taxes are minimal unless the exchange rate changes drastically while your trades are settling (from capital gains or losses while waiting a few days for the trades to settle), but they are annoying to calculate, if you do it often. Warning if you do it in a TFSA be sure not to over contribute. Every time you deposit counts as a contribution and your withdrawals don't count against the limit until the next calendar year.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "128d222913be065a4e270541bff04ba4", "text": "Depends on the countries and their rules about moving money across the border, but in this case that appears entirely reasonable. Of course it would be a gamble unless you can predict the future values of currency better than most folks; there is no guarantee that the exchange rate will move in any particular direction. I have no idea whether any tax is due on profit from currency arbitrage.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ee0cf90186bff11bd3da57fd10154e0", "text": "\"As is so often the case, there is an asterisk next to that 2.5% interest offer. It leads you to a footnote which says: Savings Interest Rate Offer of 2.5% is available between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015 on all net new deposits made between January 1, 2015 and March 31, 2015 to a maximum of $250,000.00 per Account registration. You only earn 2.5% interest on deposits made during those three months. Also, on the full offer info page, it says: During the Offer Period, the Bank will calculate Additional Interest on eligible net new deposits and: All interest payments are ineligible for the purposes of calculating Additional Interest and will not be calculated for the purposes of determining eligible daily balances. In other words, any interest paid into an Applicable Account, including Additional Interest, will not be treated as a new deposit for subsequently calculating Additional Interest payments. I couldn't totally parse out all the details of the offer from their legalese, but what it sounds like is you will earn 2.5% interest on money that you deposit into the account during those three months. Any interest you accrue during that time will not count as a deposit in this sense, and so will not earn 2.5% compounded returns. The \"\"During the Offer Period\"\" qualification also makes it sound like this extra interest will only be paid during the three months (presumably at a 2.5% annualized rate, but I can't see where it actually says this). So essentially you are getting a one-time bonus for making deposits during a specific three-month period. The account doesn't really earn 2.5% interest in the normal sense. The long-term interest rate will be what it normally is for their savings accounts, which this page says is 1.05%.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a0a837bb59550e224a7b7b583c1f7dc1", "text": "You shouldn't be charged interest, unless possibly because your purchases involve a currency conversion. I've made normal purchases that happened to involve changes in currency. The prices were quoted in US$ to me. On the tail end, though, the currency change was treated as a cash advance, which accrues interest immediately.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "97d2304c009c366add62833f7a2fd500", "text": "You can check the website for the company that manages the fund. For example, take the iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB). iShares publishes the complete list of the fund's holdings on their website. This information isn't always easy to find or available, but it's a place to start. For some index funds, you should just be able to look up the index the fund is trying to match. This won't be perfect (take Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO); the fund holds 503 stocks, while the S&P 500 index is comprised of exactly 500), but once again, it's a place to start. A few more points to keep in mind. Remember that many ETF's, including equity ETF's, will hold a small portion of their assets in cash or cash-equivalent instruments to assist with rebalancing. For index funds, this may not be reflected in the index itself, and it may not show up in the list of holdings. VOO is an example of this. However, that information is usually available in the fund's prospectus or the fund's site. Also, I doubt that many stock ETF's, at least index funds, change their asset allocations all that frequently. The amounts may change slightly, but depending on the size of their holdings in a given stock, it's unlikely that the fund's manager would drop it entirely.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
178664000f6742046a948a23573d57c6	Make your money work for you	[ { "docid": "12a5dfefae5533d02fc029493de8e23b", "text": "\"First of all, never is too late to develop good habits. So, you know what you want to do and you are going about the how now... First, you should pay off any consumer debt except from mortgage which should be planned for. Prioritize your consumer debt (credit cards, consumer loans, etc) according to the interest rates, starting with the one with the highest interest and going to the one with the lowest one. Because you should make quite the investments to pay off this interest debt and still make a profit. Second, you should start saving some money. The 10% rule of thumb is a good one and for starters having aside the money you need to get by for at least 3 months is quite okay. As they say, cash is king. Now, that you actually realize the amount you can spare each month to start investing (assuming you had to do something of the aforementioned) it's time to see the risk you are comfortable taking. Different risk-taking views lead to different investing routes. So, assuming once again that you are risk averse (having a newborn baby and all) and that you want something more than just a savings account, you can start looking for things that don't require much attention (even more so if you are going on you own about it) such as low risk mutual funds, ETF (Exchange Traded Funds) and index funds to track indexes like FTSE and S&P500 (you could get an average annual return of 10-12%, just google \"\"top safe etfs\"\" for example and you could take a quick look at credible sites like forbes etc). Also, you can take a look at fixed income options such as government bonds. Last but not least, you can always get your pick at some value companies stocks (usually big companies that have proven track record, check warren buffet on this). You should look for stocks that pay dividends since you are in for the long run and not just to make a quick buck. I hope I helped a bit and as always be cautious about investing since they have some inherent risks. If you don't feel comfortable with making your own investment choices you should contact a specialist like a financial planner or advisor. No matter what the case may be on this, you should still educate yourself on this... just to get a grasp on this.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6b95b3fce2acbc010beeff2f59722420", "text": "In addition to the other excellent answers here, check out Mr. Money Mustache's site, it's based in the US but the basics still hold here in the UK. Another great site is the Monevator which is UK based and gives some great information on passive investing. Well done on getting to this point at your age - you've got plenty of time for the miracle of compound interest to work for you. EDIT: Once you have any existing debts paid off, take a look at passive/index investing. This could be a good way to make your £150 work for you by capturing the gains of the stock market. Invest it long-term (buy and hold) to make the most of the compound interested effect and over time that money will become something substantial - especially if you can increase payments over time as your income increases. You could also look at reducing your outgoings as recommended on the Mustache site linked above so you can increase your monthly investment amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4227383817fb1d7e34405d771bee381", "text": "Thats a very open question, Depends on the risk you are willing to take with the money, or the length of time you are willing sit on it, or if you have a specific goal like buying a house. Some banks offer high(ish) rate savings accounts http://www.bankaccountsavings.co.uk/calculator with a switching bonus that could be a good start. (combining the nationwide flexdirect and regular saver) if you want something more long term - safe option is bonds, medium risk option is Index funds (kind of covers all 3 risks really), risky option is Stocks & shares. For these probably a S&S ISA for a tax efficient option. Also LISA or HtB ISA are worth considering if you want to buy a house in the future.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "70959a94ab8dc442e876159289f59fd4", "text": "\"? You quoted an oft cited oft disproven false factoid. It's extremely biased. Like you seem to be. Most of those \"\"self made\"\", notice those quotes, people came from money. Their business is \"\"self made\"\", with family money. Like the article implies.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e32fa977d20156bc3c089162770bd973", "text": "\"It's a spin on the phrase \"\"making your money work for you\"\". before sending your money off to do the heavy lifting, you'll want to have an emergency savings account of about six months of living expenses stored in cash. Basically, he is saying before you start to invest make sure you have sufficient emergency savings.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b93f00f94640b4f7b8e50bb642cb8f8e", "text": "Rather than discuss whether you're thinking about things incorrectly, I'll just show you how to answer the question you asked: Now as to what wage to pay yourself to meet your expenses, do the same thing but only using personal components:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7bb308f44ff6da2b1bf5802b291d2e49", "text": "Wealth Generators is there for you to make you learn all the essentials techniques required to make your hard earned money provide you with the best output which you can never imagine. Yes, optimism and the smart skills are the two pivotal ways to get success over the curvature of the financial twisting.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "67cb69609988f2e18d54cebb5c343b92", "text": "\"Basically, your question boils down to this: Where and how do I squeeze the stock market so that within time period X, it will make me Y dollars. (Where I'm emotionally attached to the Y figure because I recently lost it, and X is \"\"as soon as possible\"\".) To make money on the stock market (in a quasi-guaranteed way), you have to adjust X and Y so that they are realistic. For instance, let X be twenty-five years, and Y be \"\"7% annual return\"\". Small values of X are risky, unless X is on the order of milliseconds and you have a computer program working for you. To mitigate some of the risk of short term trading, you have to treat trading seriously and study like mad: study the stock market in general, and not only that, but carefully research the companies whose stocks you are buying. Work actively to discover stocks which are under-valued relative to the performance of their corporation, and which might correct upward relative to the performance of similar stocks. Always have an exit strategy for every position and stick to it. Use instruments like \"\"trailing stops\"\": automatic tracking which follows a price in one direction, and then produces an order to close the position when the price reverses by a certain amount.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "35b2f05eeda5be63272d56c44265f40e", "text": "\"Think of yourself as a business with two accounts, \"\"cash\"\" and \"\"net worth\"\". Your goal is to make money. \"\"Cash\"\" is what you need to meet your obligations. You need to pay your rent/mortgage, utilities, buy food, pay for transportation, service debt, etc. If you make $100 a month, and your obligations are $90, you're clearing $10. \"\"Net worth\"\" are assets that you own, including cash, retirement savings, investments, or even tangible goods like real property or items you collect with value. The \"\"pay off debt\"\" versus \"\"save money\"\" debate, in my opinion, is driven by two things, in this order: If you start saving too soon, you'll have a hard time getting by when your car suddenly needs a $500 repair or you need a new furnace. You need to improve your cash flow so that you actually have discretionary income. Pay off those credit cards, then start directing those old payments into savings and investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bf230205bb1a357e7a52292f2a695eb", "text": "\"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bc47380b1440b2a83baddc91ccfc006a", "text": "Big money, by vitue of its own existence, produces value. What's a person to do with it? Stuff it under a mattress and earn 0 yield? No. If you want safety, you'll put it in AAA rated US gov't bonds and help fund the government. If you want yield, you'll put it in broadly diversified equities investments, small companies, big companies, energy companies, tech companies, media companies, and so on, and soak up the net gain while injecting much needed capital investment directly into those industries, financing start up costs like construction and equipment procurement costs, as well as staffing costs. Yes, big money absolutely creates value. The trains, cars, roads, and sidewalks you travel through to get to work? All financed by filthy rich people money. The building you work in and the equipment you use? Likely financed by filthy rich people money as well. Its called financial intermediation and capital arbitrage, and you can thank your Gods you live in a country where the government allows it to operate efficiently.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ddaec831da2ea04d33237c7a9d7a2a9b", "text": "Are you sure the question even makes sense? In the present-day world economy, it's unlikely that someone young who just started working has the means to put away any significant amount of money as savings, and attempting to do so might actually preclude making the financial choices that actually lead to stability - things like purchasing [the right types and amounts of] insurance, buying outright rather than using credit to compensate for the fact that you committed to keep some portion of your income as savings, spending money in ways that enrich your experience and expand your professional opportunities, etc. There's also the ethical question of how viable/sustainable saving is. The mechanism by which saving ensures financial stability is by everyone hoarding enough resources to deal with some level of worst-case scenario that might happen in their future. This worked for past generations in the US because we had massive amounts (relative to the population) of (stolen) natural resources, infrastructure built on enslaved labor, etc. It doesn't scale with modern changes the world is undergoing and it inherently only works for some people when it's not working for others. From my perspective, much more valuable financial skills for the next generation are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e70f070567f72d3cd82300d15e0e1f7c", "text": "\"I realize that \"\"a million dollars\"\" is a completely arbitrary figure, but it's one people fixate on. Perhaps folks just meant it's getting easier because inflation has made it a far less lofty sum than when the word \"\"millionaire\"\" was coined. Your point is correct - it' relatively easier as the 1 million dollar nowadays is no where as valuable as compared in the old days after the inflation adjustment. However the way to achieve that is easier said than done: The most possible way is to run your own business (assuming you will make profit). For most of the people running a job to earn a living - the job income is the biggest factor. Being extremely frugal wouldn't help much if you don't maximize your income potential. Earning a million dollar through investment? How much capitals are you able to invest in? 5k? 50k? 500k? I see no way to earn 1 million with 5k from investment, I wouldn't call it easy. This again depends on your income. With better income of course you could dedicate a larger portion to investment, without exposing too much risk and having to affect your way of life. (3) Invest some part of your income over a long period of time and let the stock market do the work I'd say this is more geared towards beating the inflation and earn a few extra bucks instead of getting very rich (this is being very relative). Just a word of cautions, the mindset of investment being the shortcut to wealth is very dangerous and often leads to speculative behavior.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "faf2af9aef0c7e879950338c52e1ccf0", "text": "10k in taser stock at $1.00 per share made those who held into the hundreds per share made millions. But think about the likelihood of you owning a $1 stock and holding it past $10.00. They (taser millionaires) were both crazy and lucky. A direct answer, better off buying a lottery ticket. Stocks are for growing wealth not gaining wealth imho. Of course there are outliers though. To the point in the other answer, if it was repeatable the people teaching the tricks (if they worked) would make much more if they followed their own advice if it worked. Also, if everyone tells you how good gold is to buy that just means they are selling to get out. If it was that good they would be buying and not saying anything about it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84a52eb31913a2aea4d3f32967b290ca", "text": "\"There is only one way to create \"\"stable\"\" income using options: write COVERED calls. This means you must own some stocks which offer an active and liquid option market (FB would be good; T would be useless.) In other words, you need to own some \"\"unstable\"\" stocks, tickers that have sometimes scary volatility, and of course these are not great stocks for a retiree. But, let's assume you own 500 shares of FB, which you bought in June of 2015 for $75. Today, you could have been paid $2,375 for selling five Mar18'16 $105 Calls. Your reasoning is: So, the rule is: ONLY SELL COVERED CALLS AT A PRICE YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT. If you follow the rule, you'll generate more-or-less \"\"stable\"\" income. Do not venture off this narrow path into the rest of Option Land. There be dragons. You can select strike prices that are far out of the money to minimize the chance of being exercised (and sweeten the deal by collecting an even higher price if the stock flies that high). If you are thinking about doing this, study the subject thoroughly until you know the terminology backwards and forwards. (Don't worry about \"\"the greeks\"\" since market makers manipulate implied volatility so wildly that it overrides everything else.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a7bcd917fe07b351cca0a1b88d3050c8", "text": "\"I have money to invest. Where should I put it? Anyone who answers with \"\"Give it to me, I'll invest it for you, don't worry.\"\" needs to be avoided. If your financial advisor gives you this line or equivalent, fire him/her and find another. Before you think about where you should put your money, learn about investing. Take courses, read books, consume blogs and videos on investing in stocks, businesses, real estate, and precious metals. Learn what the risks and rewards are for each, and make an informed decision based on what you learned. Find differing opinions on each type of investment and come to your own conclusions for each. I for example, do not understand stocks, and so do not seriously work the stock market. Mutual funds make money for the folks selling them whether or not the price goes up or down. You assume all the risk while the mutual fund advisor gets the reward. If you find a mutual fund advisor who cannot recommend the purchase of a product he doesn't sell, he's not an advisor, he's a salesman. Investing in business requires you either to intimately understand businesses and how to fund them, or to hire someone who can make an objective evaluation for you. Again this requires training. I have no such training, and avoid investing in businesses. Investing in real estate also requires you to know what to look for in a property that produces cash flow or capital gains. I took a course, read some books, gained experience and have a knowledgeable team at my disposal so my wins are greater than my losses. Do not be fooled by people telling you that higher risk means higher reward. Risks that you understand and have a detailed plan to mitigate are not risks. It is possible to have higher reward without increasing risk. Again, do your own research. The richest people in the world do not own mutual funds or IRAs or RRSPs or TFSAs, they do their own research and invest in the things I mentioned above.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70b440149f0ea2945f6e0a986e1c361f", "text": "In the current economy there is no upside to working for yourself. Get in a salaried position as soon as you can, and sacrifice to whatever gods you worship that you don't get made redundant. If you're already working for yourself, and wouldn't give it up for anything, hire someone, and get them off the street.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e1d2542f162fa792e10a2de8cfec475c", "text": "Because so many businesses make some money through some form of compound interest, like a business that saves its earnings in a business account that pays interest, it heavily depends on how strict you interpret this law. Some Muslims I know interpret it to mean directly and indirectly, while for some it's just direct interest earned. What I would suggest is either a direct investment in agriculture or a share in agriculture, where you are directly paid from your share in the investment and not through money that comes from a bank account earning interest. If you do a direct investment in agriculture, like owning livestock, you will be paid money in the form of food, which compounds through reproduction and can sell the offspring to others and collect the money. Year to date, agriculture is crushing the S&P 500 and many places around the world are facing shortages in food, like sugar and corn. If you don't have enough money for a direct investment, you can try the share route where you own a share of a direct investment. Rather than go through stock exchanges, where many of these companies make money indirectly through interest also, you can negotiate directly with farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, etc. Some of these individuals are looking to diversify their money, so they may be willing to let you own a fraction of what they produce and pay you directly. All of this comes with risk, of course. Livestock and plants die for a variety of reasons, but none of it will be interest from lending whether to individuals or through a bank. In addition, if we experience very high inflation in the future, livestock and plants do very well in this environment.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4fe15cc2b6efa6b3f58eaa096abc0ad4	How can I figure out how much to bid on a parking space?	[ { "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": "7a4517829633220b631b2b74684ce8d1", "text": "\"Scenario 1: Assume that you plan to keep the parking space for the rest of your life and collect the income from the rental. You say these spaces rent for $250 per month and there are fees of $1400 per year. Are there any other costs? Like would you be responsible for the cost of repaving at some point? But assuming that's covered in the $1400, the net profit is 250 x 12 - 1400 = $1600 per year. So now the question becomes, what other things could you invest your money in, and what sort of returns do those give? If, say, you have investments in the stock market that are generating a 10% annual return and you expect that rate of return to continue indefinitely, than if you pay a price that gives you a return of less than 10%, i.e. if you pay more than $16,000, then you would be better off to put the money in the stock market. That is, you should calculate the fair price \"\"backwards\"\": What return on investment is acceptable, and then what price would I have to pay to get that ROI? Oh, you should also consider what the \"\"occupancy rate\"\" on such parking spaces is. Is there enough demand that you can realistically expect to have it rented out 100% of the time? When one renter leaves, how long does it take to find another? And do you have any information on how often renters fail to pay the rent? I own a house that I rent out and I had two tenants in a row who failed to pay the rent, and the legal process to get them evicted takes months. I don't know what it takes to \"\"evict\"\" someone from a parking space. Scenario 2: You expect to collect rent on this space for some period of time, and then someday sell it. In that case, there's an additional piece of information you need: How much can you expect to get for this property when you sell it? This is almost surely highly speculative. But you could certainly look at past pricing trends. If you see that the value of a parking space in your area has been going up by, whatever, say 4% per year for the past 20 years, it's reasonable to plan on the assumption that this trend will continue. If it's been up and down and all over the place, you could be taking a real gamble. If you pay $30,000 for it today and when the time comes to sell the best you can get is $15,000, that's not so good. But if there is some reasonable consistent average rate of growth in value, you can add this to the expected rents. Like if you can expect it to grow in value by $1000 per year, then the return on your investment is the $1600 in rent plus $1000 in capital growth equals $2600. Then again do an ROI calculation based on potential returns from other investments.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "137304a6d70a9b27ece9809f15ac64d2", "text": "I think your math is fine, and also consider insurance costs and the convenience factor of each scenario. Moving a car frequently to avoid parking tickets will become tedious. I'd rather spend an hour renting a car 20 times in a year rather than have to spend 15 minutes moving a car every three days. And if there's no other easy parking, that 15 minutes can take a lot longer. Plus it'll get dirty sitting there, could get vandalized. Yuck. For only 20 days/year, I don't see how owning a car is worth the hassle. I recommend using a credit card that comes with free car rental insurance.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "822e1f9492535c3f6384740dce620347", "text": "If the company that owns the lot is selling them it is doing so because it feels it will make more money doing so. You need to read carefully what it is you are getting and what the guarantees are from the owner of the property and the parking structure. I have heard from friends in Chicago that said there are people who will sell spaces they do not own as a scam. There are also companies that declare bankruptcy and go out of business after signing long term leases for their spots. They sell the lot to another company(which they have an interest in) and all the leases that they sold are now void so they can resell the spots. Because of this if I were going to invest in a parking space, I would make sure: The company making the offer is reputable and solvent Check for plans for major construction/demolition nearby that would impact your short and long term prospects for rent. Full time Rental would Recoup my investment in less than 5 years. Preferably 3 years. The risk on this is too high for me with out that kind of return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0e8002a8483e94f44f69a314c387ea4a", "text": "I believe @Dilip addressed your question alread, I am going to focus on your second question: What are the criteria one should use for estimating the worth of the situation? The criteria are: I hope this helps.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca5eeab62ad25a710f6f6d4e5a082e79", "text": "No, this is misbehavior of sales software that tries to automatically find the price point which maximizes profit. There have been much worse examples. Ignore it. The robot will eventually see that no sales occurred and try a more reasonable price.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "70591461ef9fce7e7b32b7b259bf14f6", "text": "The quant aspect '''''. This is the kind of math I was wondering if it existed, but now it sounds like it is much more complex in reality then optimizing by evaluating different cost of capital. Thank you for sharing", "title": "" }, { "docid": "52e40fd08cb30cf52d054148af711b47", "text": "\"I read a really good tract that my credit union gave me years ago written by a former car salesman about negotiation tactics with car dealers. Wish I could find it again, but I remember a few of the main points. 1) Never negotiate based on the monthly payment amount. Car salesmen love to get you into thinking about the monthly loan payment and often start out by asking what you can afford for a payment. They know that they can essentially charge you whatever they want for the car and make the payments hit your budget by tweaking the loan terms (length, down payment, etc.) 2) (New cars only) Don't negotiate on the price directly. It is extremely hard to compare prices between dealerships because it is very hard to find exactly the same combination of options. Instead negotiate the markup amount over dealer invoice. 3) Negotiate one thing at a time A favorite shell game of car dealers is to get you to negotiate the car price, trade-in price, and financing all at one time. Unless you are a rain-man mathematical genius, don't do it. Doing this makes it easy for them to make concessions on one thing and take them right back somewhere else. (Minus $500 on the new car, plus $200 through an extra half point on financing, etc). 4) Handling the Trade-In 5) 99.9999% of the time the \"\"I forgot to mention\"\" extra items are a ripoff They make huge bonuses for selling this extremely overpriced junk you don't need. 6) Scrutinize everything on the sticker price I've seen car dealers have the balls to add a line item for \"\"Marketing Costs\"\" at around $500, then claim with a straight face that unlike OTHER dealers they are just being upfront about their expenses instead of hiding them in the price of the car. Pure bunk. If you negotiate based on an offset from the invoice instead of sticker price it helps you avoid all this nonsense since the manufacturer most assuredly did not include \"\"Marketing costs\"\" on the dealer invoice. 7) Call Around before closing the deal Car dealers can be a little cranky about this, but they often have an \"\"Internet sales person\"\" assigned to handle this type of deal. Once you know what you want, but before you buy, get the model number and all the codes for the options then call 2-3 dealers and try to get a quote over the phone or e-mail on that exact car. Again, get the quote in terms of markup from dealer invoice price, not sticker price. Going through the Internet sales guy doesn't at all mean you have to buy on the Internet, I still suggest going down to the dealership with the best price and test driving the car in person. The Internet guy is just a sales guy like all the rest of them and will be happy to meet with you and talk through the deal in-person. Update: After recently going through this process again and talking to a bunch of dealers, I have a few things to add: 7a) The price posted on the Internet is often the dealer's bottom line number. Because of sites like AutoTrader and other car marketplaces that let you shop the car across dealerships, they have a lot of incentive to put their rock-bottom prices online where they know people aggressively comparison shop. 7b) Get the price of the car using the stock number from multiple sources (Autotrader, dealer web site, eBay Motors, etc.) and find the lowest price advertised. Then either print or take a screenshot of that price. Dealers sometimes change their prices (up or down) between the time you see it online and when you get to the dealership. I just bought a car where the price went up $1,000 overnight. The sales guy brought up the website and tried to convince me that I was confused. I just pulled up the screenshot on my iPhone and he stopped arguing. I'm not certain, but I got the feeling that there is some kind of bait-switch law that says if you can prove they posted a price they have to honor it. In at least two dealerships they got very contrite and backed away slowly from their bargaining position when I offered proof that they had posted the car at a lower price. 8) The sales guy has ultimate authority on the deal and doesn't need approval Inevitably they will leave the room to \"\"run the deal by my boss/financing guy/mom\"\" This is just a game and negotiating trick to serve two purposes: - To keep you in the dealership longer not shopping at competitors. - So they can good-cop/bad-cop you in the negotiations on price. That is, insult your offer without making you upset at the guy in front of you. - To make it harder for you to walk out of the negotiation and compromise more readily. Let me clarify that last point. They are using a psychological sales trick to make you feel like an ass for wasting the guy's time if you walk out on the deal after sitting in his office all afternoon, especially since he gave you free coffee and sodas. Also, if you have personally invested a lot of time in the deal so far, it makes you feel like you wasted your own time if you don't cross the goal line. As soon as one side of a negotiation forfeits the option to walk away from the deal, the power shifts significantly to the other side. Bottom line: Don't feel guilty about walking out if you can't get the deal you want. Remember, the sales guy is the one that dragged this thing out by playing hide-and-seek with you all day. He wasted your time, not the reverse.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e750f12f5683c48b851b165badc91522", "text": "\"Do some homework to determine what is really a fair price for the house. Zillow helps. County tax records help, including last sale price and mortgage, if any (yes, it's public). Start at the low end of fair. Don't rely on the Realtor. He gets paid only if a sale occurs, and he's already coaxing you closer to a paycheck. He might be right with the numbers, though, so check for yourself. When you get within a thousand or two of acceptance, \"\"shut up\"\". I don't mean that in a rude way. A negotiating class I took taught me how effective silence can be, at the right time. The other side knows you're close and the highest you've offered. If they would be willing to find a way to come down to that, this is the time. The awkward silence is surprisingly effective.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e513a42cc62175045e50d61a634a5d83", "text": "If an offered price is below what people are willing to sell for, it is simply ignored. (What happens if I offer to buy lots of cars as long as I only have to pay $2 each? Same thing.)", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7e5b4f091f7a0e9f2328d42e944873bc", "text": "I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS. Are you talking about trying to estimate them? Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc. I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals. There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a52969d6de27e78057142e53b34db9c", "text": "You're realizing the perils of using a DCF analysis. At best, you can use them to get a range of possible values and use them as a heuristic, but you'll probably find it difficult to generate a realistic estimate that is significantly different than where the price is already.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1423a5b34e0ba05d007a623a2b02f8ec", "text": "To calculate you take the Price and divide it by the Earnings, or by the Sales, or by the Free Cash Flow. Most of these calculations are done for you on a lot of finance sites if the data is available. Such sites as Yahoo Finance and Google Finance as well as my personal favorite: Morningstar", "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": "adbf875f8d2517033d641b19a42c1ad0", "text": "\"1) Get some gold. 2) Walk around, yelling, \"\"Hey, I have some gold, who wants to buy it?\"\" 3) Once you have enough interested parties, hold an auction and see who will give you the most dollars for it. 4) Trade the gold for that many dollars. 5) You have just measured the value of your gold.\"", "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": "" }, { "docid": "cf436e92c85791cdbc4cce4ca62c946d", "text": "\"I think there's a measure of confirmation bias here. If you talk to somebody that started a successful business and got a million out of it, he'd say \"\"it's easy, just do this and that, like I did\"\". If you consider this as isolated incident, you would ignore thousands of others that did exactly the same and still struggle to break even, or are earning much less, or just went broke and moved on long time ago. You will almost never hear about these as books titled \"\"How I tried to start a business and failed\"\" sell much worse than success stories. So I do not think there's a guaranteed easy way - otherwise we'd have much more millionaires than we do now :) However, it does not mean any of those ways is not worth trying - whatever failure rate there is, it's less than 100% failure rate of not trying anything. You have to choose what fits your abilities and personality best - frugality, risk, inventiveness? Then hope you get as lucky as those \"\"it's easy\"\" people are, I guess.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
0cbb645fc6dec6e40b599f4fbf1ba068	Individual Investor Safe Reinvest Gains Strategy?	[ { "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": "0dac24e12eefbe65efdfe988ff4c2aa6", "text": "\"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \"\"investment\"\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d52d5504411747e2542abe9d003d7cb2", "text": "The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5625496dedd8862d5e88416d729fc2de", "text": "\"First off, the answer to your question is something EVERYONE would like to know. There are fund managers at Fidelity who will a pay $100 million fee to someone who can tell them a \"\"safe\"\" way to earn interest. The first thing to decide, is do you want to save money, or invest money. If you just want to save your money, you can keep it in cash, certificates of deposit or gold. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. For example, gold tends to hold its value over time and will always have value. Even if Russia invades Switzerland and the Swiss Franc becomes worthless, your gold will still be useful and spendable. As Alan Greenspan famously wrote long ago, \"\"Gold is always accepted.\"\" If you want to invest money and make it grow, yet still have the money \"\"fluent\"\" which I assume means liquid, your main option is a major equity, since those can be readily bought and sold. I know in your question you are reluctant to put your money at the \"\"mercy\"\" of one stock, but the criteria you have listed match up with an equity investment, so if you want to meet your goals, you are going to have to come to terms with your fears and buy a stock. Find a good blue chip stock that is in an industry with positive prospects. Stay away from stuff that is sexy or hyped. Focus on just one stock--that way you can research it to death. The better you understand what you are buying, the greater the chance of success. Zurich Financial Services is a very solid company right now in a nice, boring, highly profitable business. Might fit your needs perfectly. They were founded in 1872, one of the safest equities you will find. Nestle is another option. Roche is another. If you want something a little more risky consider Georg Fischer. Anyway, what I can tell you, is that your goals match up with a blue chip equity as the logical type of investment. Note on Diversification Many financial advisors will advise you to \"\"diversify\"\", for example, by investing in many stocks instead of just one, or even by buying funds that are invested in hundreds of stocks, or indexes that are invested in the whole market. I disagree with this philosophy. Would you go into a casino and divide your money, putting a small portion on each game? No, it is a bad idea because most of the games have poor returns. Yet, that is exactly what you do when you diversify. It is a false sense of safety. The proper thing to do is exactly what you would do if forced to bet in casino: find the game with the best return, get as good as you can at that game, and play just that one game. That is the proper and smart thing to do.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "050c767b77c61494380662aa4b300d36", "text": "\"Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A \"\"whole market\"\" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re \"\"risk free\"\". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.)\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "155e0bbfc86158ee56b244c544cba650", "text": "\"I will solely address your fear because from what I read you fear investing in something that could possibly go down in the future. This is almost identical to market timing, so let's use the SPY as an example. Look at the SPY on Yahoo Finance, specifically in 2011. The market experienced a little bit of a pull back during the year, and some \"\"analysts\"\" claimed that it would fall below 600 (read this). In fact, a co-worker of mine said that he feared buying the S&P 500 in 2011 (as well as in 2010), so he bought gold (compare the two from 2011 to now - to put it bluntly he experienced 50% less gain than I did). Did the S&P 500 ever fall below 600 in that timeframe, or according to the linked analyst (there were plenty of similar predictions then)? No. If you avoid doing something because you're afraid it could drop, technically, you should be just as afraid of it rising (Fear of Losing Everything, FOLE, vs. Fear of Missing Out, FOMO - both are real). That's not to say invest out of fear, but that fear cuts both ways, and generally, we only look at it from one side. Retirement investing should be a boring, automated process where, ideally, we don't try and time the market (though some will try, and like in 2011, fail). If you can't help your fear, you can always approach retirement investing with automated re-balancing where you hold some money in \"\"less risky\"\" forms and others in \"\"higher risk\"\" forms and automate a rebalance every month or quarter.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "03bd51af0037dd95496e5d212684437d", "text": "\"You are your own worst enemy when it comes to investing. You might think that you can handle a lot of risk but when the market plummets you don't know exactly how you'll react. Many people panic and sell at the worst possible time, and that kills their returns. Will that be you? It's impossible to tell until it happens. Don't just invest in stocks. Put some of your money in bonds. For example TIPS, which are inflation adjusted treasury bonds (very safe, and the return is tied to the rate of inflation). That way, when the stock market falls, you'll have a back-stop and you'll be less likely to sell at the wrong time. A 50/50 stock/bond mix is probably reasonable. Some recommend your age in bonds, which for you means 20% or so. Personally I think 50/50 is better even at your young age. Invest in broad market indexes, such as the S&P 500. Steer clear of individual stocks except for maybe 5-10% of your total. Individual stocks carry the risk of going out of business, such as Enron. Follow Warren Buffet's two rules of investing: a) Don't lose money b) See rule a). Ignore the \"\"investment porn\"\" that is all around you in the form of TV shows and ads. Don't chase hot companies, sectors or countries. Try to estimate what you'll need for retirement (if that's what your investing for) and don't take more risk than you need to. Try to maintain a very simple portfolio that you'll be able to sleep well with. For example, check into the coffeehouse investor Pay a visit to the Bogleheads Forum - you can ask for advice there and the advice will be excellent. Avoid investments with high fees. Get advice from a good fee-only investment advisor if needed. Don't forget to enjoy some of your money now as well. You might not make it to retirement. Read, read, read about investing and retirement. There are many excellent books out there, many of which you can pick up used (cheap) through amazon.com.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ef5ae799f8b31bb763122fa08838f1e", "text": "Benjamin Grahams strategy was to invest in REALLY SAFE stocks. In his time lean businesses weren't as common as they are now and he found many companies with assets greater than the value of their shares. Putting a number figure on it isn't really necessary but the concept is useful. Its the idea that bigger companies are less turbulent (Which is something to avoid for an investor). Most companies in the top 500 or whatever will satisfy this.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "86f6040b3e8eaec64c6e7b504c54c483", "text": "\"I think it's a silly statement. If you are prepared from the start that you might lose it then you shouldn't invest. You invest to earn not to lose. Most often losses are a result of fear. Remember you only lose when you sell lower than you bought for. So if you have the patience you will probably regain. I ask my clients many times how much do they want to earn and they all say \"\"as much as possible\"\". Last time I checked, that's not an objective and therefore a strategy can't be built for that. If there is a strategy then exiting a stock is easy, without a strategy you never know when to exit and then you are exposed to bottomless losses. I've successfully traded for many years with large amounts of money. I made money in the FC and in the bubble, both times it wasn't because I was prepared to lose but because I had an entry and exit strategy. If you have both the idea of investing what u are prepared to lose has little value.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8f913c481b6e6bedab9ea544c959e216", "text": "You're going to have a hard time finding a legit investment planner that is willing to do things like take short-term positions in shorts, etc for a small investor. Doing so would put them at risk of getting sued by you for mismanagement and losing their license or affiliation with industry associations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7ea663033a717152ec26513c3bd8ce6f", "text": "While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5a9a5dcc1532513df50baedcb611b3ce", "text": "Thanks for the answer/comments! The time-based method was something we mooted and something I almost went with. But just to wrap this up, the method we settled on was this: Every time there is an entry or exit into the fund, we divvy out any unrealised market profits/losses according to each person's profit share (based on % of the asset purchased at buy-in) JUST BEFORE the entry/exit. These realised profits are then locked in for those particpants, and then the unrealised profits/loss counter starts at zero, we do a fresh recalculation of shareholding after the entry/exit, and then we start again. Hope this helps anyone with the same issue!", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4fb93947461cf2614b37f4ea50bbec9b", "text": "Googling vanguard target asset allocation led me to this page on the Bogleheads wiki which has detailed breakdowns of the Target Retirement funds; that page in turn has a link to this Vanguard PDF which goes into a good level of detail on the construction of these funds' portfolios. I excerpt: (To the question of why so much weight in equities:) In our view, two important considerations justify an expectation of an equity risk premium. The first is the historical record: In the past, and in many countries, stock market investors have been rewarded with such a premium. ... Historically, bond returns have lagged equity returns by about 5–6 percentage points, annualized—amounting to an enormous return differential in most circumstances over longer time periods. Consequently, retirement savers investing only in “safe” assets must dramatically increase their savings rates to compensate for the lower expected returns those investments offer. ... The second strategic principle underlying our glidepath construction—that younger investors are better able to withstand risk—recognizes that an individual’s total net worth consists of both their current financial holdings and their future work earnings. For younger individuals, the majority of their ultimate retirement wealth is in the form of what they will earn in the future, or their “human capital.” Therefore, a large commitment to stocks in a younger person’s portfolio may be appropriate to balance and diversify risk exposure to work-related earnings (To the question of how the exact allocations were decided:) As part of the process of evaluating and identifying an appropriate glide path given this theoretical framework, we ran various financial simulations using the Vanguard Capital Markets Model. We examined different risk-reward scenarios and the potential implications of different glide paths and TDF approaches. The PDF is highly readable, I would say, and includes references to quant articles, for those that like that sort of thing.", "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": "750ac12a6b41230be09d1b31bceb0f1c", "text": "Again, you are asking people to trust you with their life savings so you can take your 1% and the best you can do is google? You don't have a lawyer or anything? Plenty of advisory shops allow you to set up your own business within their infrastructure.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "93ef981989a4ba46217a014dc7c11a8b", "text": "\"I'm not downvoting you because I can relate, in a way, to your post and I think this is a good topic to have on this site. We had a question a couple weeks ago where someone, like you, took some friend's money to trade with but didn't know how to give the money back or calculate the net-return. It is not smart to take and invest other people's money when you have zero industry experience and when you do not understand the legal requirements of handling someone else's money. Within the first 12 months of my brokerage account I had returned something like 150%, I doubled my money plus a bit. The next year was something like -20%; if I remember correctly the next year was worse, then up again for year four. Year 1 I thought I was a genius and had figured this whole thing out, year 2 put me in my place and year 3 kicked me while I was down. You have 6 months of pretty solid returns, good for you. I don't think that means it's time to set up shop. Really, I think you need to sit down and think long and hard about the implications, legal and otherwise, of holding other people's money. Running a fund is significantly different than trading your own money. Retail investors don't, typically, have a good memory. Great, you made me 17% last year, and 25% the year before but right now I'm down 10%, so give me my money back because I would have been better off in an savings account this year. This is why index funds are in vogue right now. Lots of people have had money in active funds that have trailed or matched the \"\"safe and passive\"\" index funds, so they're angry. Retail folks get jittery the instant they lose money, no matter how much. You need to be ready to contend with \"\"What have you done for me lately?\"\" the instant something turns negative, no matter how positive your returns have been. At your stage in the game you should get a job and continue putting your own money in to your own system and be ready to lose some of it. I doubt there is anyone outside your immediate family who will hand a random 18 year-old kid any significant amount of money to trade their system based on 6 months of success; certainly not more than you have in there currently.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
e4d220daf97c2275ce9ec2532d0af7b3	Investing Superannuation Australia	[ { "docid": "d63aa09ac7937a4d61812e0a102489b3", "text": "You can make a start to learn how to make better investing decisions by learning and understanding what your current super funds are invested in. Does the super fund give you choices of where you can invest your funds, and how often does it allow you to change your investment choices each year? If you are interested in one area of investing over others, eg property or shares, then you should learn more on this subject, as you can also start investing outside of superannuation. Your funds in superannuation are taxed less but you are unable to touch them for another 30 to 35 years. You also need to consider investing outside super to help meet your more medium term goals and grow your wealth outside of super as well. If you are interested in shares then I believe you should learn about both fundamental and technical analysis, they can help you to make wiser decisions about what to invest in and when to invest. Above is a chart of the ASX200 over the last 20 years until January 2015. It shows the Rate Of Change (ROC) indicator below the chart. This can be used to make medium to long term decisions in the stock market by investing when the ROC is above zero and getting out of the market when the ROC is below zero. Regarding your aggressiveness in your investments, most would say that yes because you are still young you should be aggressive because you have time on your side, so if there is a downturn in your investments then you still have plenty of time for them to recover. I have a different view, and I will use the stock market as an example. Refer back to the chart above, I would be more aggressive when the ROC is above zero and less aggressive when the ROC is below zero. How can you relate this to your super fund? If it does provide you to change your investment choices, then I would be invested in more aggressive investments like shares when the ROC crosses above zero, and then when the ROC moves below zero take a less aggressive approach by moving your investments in the super fund to a more balanced or capital guaranteed strategy where less of your funds are invested in shares and more are invested in bonds and cash. You can also have a similar approach with property. Learn about the property cycles (remember super funds usually invest in commercial and industrial property rather than houses, so you would need to learn about the commercial and industrial property cycles which would be different to the residential property cycle). Regarding your question about SMSFs, if you can increase your knowledge and skills in investing, then yes switching to a SMSF will give you more control and possibly better returns. However, I would avoid switching your funds to a SMSF right now. Two reasons, firstly you would want to increase your knowledge as mentioned above, and secondly you would want to have at least $300,000 in funds before switching to a SMSF or else the setup and compliance costs would be too high as a percentage of your funds at the moment ($70,000). You do have time on your side, so whilst you are increasing your funds you can use that time to educate yourself in your areas of interest. And remember a SMSF is not only an investment vehicle whilst you are building your funds during your working life, but it is also an investment vehicle when you are retired and it becomes totally tax free during this phase, where any investment returns are tax free and any income you take out is also tax free.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9c86e9d22d6efc89d32749eb6995cce7", "text": "\"You say: To clarify, my account is with BlackRock and the fund is titled \"\"MID CAP GROWTH EQUITY-CLASS A\"\" if that helps. Not totally sure what that means. You should understand what you're investing in. The fund you have could be a fine investment, or a lousy one. If you don't know, then I don't know. The fund has a prospectus that describes what equities the fund has a position in. It will also explain the charter of the fund, which will explain why it's mid-cap growth rather than small-cap value, for example. You should read that a bit. It's almost a sure thing that your father had to acknowledge that he read it before he purchased the shares! Again: Understand your investments.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4339890815d1bd9b8804bd8772f1081f", "text": "Although not technically an answer to your question, I want to address why this is generally a bad idea. People normally put money into a savings account so that they can have quick access to it if needed, and because it is safe. You lose both of these advantages with a foreign account. You are looking at extra time and fees to receive access to the money in those australian accounts. And, more importantly, you are taking on substantial FX risk. Since 2000 the AUD exchange rate has gone from a low of 0.4845 to a high of 1.0972. Those swings are almost as large as the swings of the S&P. But, you're only getting an average return of 3.5%, instead of the average return people expect with stocks of 10%. A better idea would be to talk to a financial adviser who can help you find an investment that meets your risk tolerance, but gives you a better return than your savings account. On a final thought, the exception to this would be if you plan on spending significant time in Australia. Having money in a savings account there would actually allow you to mitigate some of your FX risk by allowing you to decide whether to convert USD when you are travelling, or using the money that you already have in your foreign account.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "cf07ca33a791c12a4ea5d40efce05453", "text": "The long term view you are referring to would be over 30 to 40 years (i.e. your working life). Yes in general you should be going for higher growth options when you are young. As you approach retirement you may change to a more balanced or capital guaranteed option. As the higher growth options will have a larger proportion of funds invested into higher growth assets like shares and property, they will be affected by market movements in these asset classes. So when there is a market crash like with the GFC in 2007/2008 and share prices drop by 40% to 50%, then this will have an effect on your superannuation returns for that year. I would say that if your fund was invested mainly in the Australian stock market over the last 7 years your returns would still be lower than what they were in mid-2007, due to the stock market falls in late 2007 and early 2008. This would mean that for the 7 year time frame your returns would be lower than a balanced or capital guaranteed fund where a majority of funds are invested in bonds and other fixed interest products. However, I would say that for the 5 and possibly the 10 year time frames the returns of the high growth options should have outperformed the balanced and capital guaranteed options. See examples below: First State Super AMP Super Both of these examples show that over a 5 year period or less the more aggressive or high growth options performed better than the more conservative options, and over the 7 year period for First State Super the high growth option performed similar to the more conservative option. Maybe you have been looking at funds with higher fees so in good times when the fund performs well the returns are reduced by excessive fees and when the fund performs badly in not so good time the performance is even worse as the fees are still excessive. Maybe look at industry type funds or retail funds that charge much smaller fees. Also, if a fund has relatively low returns during a period when the market is booming, maybe this is not a good fund to choose. Conversely, it the fund doesn't perform too badly when the market has just crashed, may be it is worth further investigating. You should always try to compare the performance to the market in general and other similar funds. Remember, super should be looked at over a 30 to 40 year time frame, and it is a good idea to get interested in how your fund is performing from an early age, instead of worrying about it only a few years before retirement.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "da42580a566494571519c724b3c1e35a", "text": "You won't know what the exchange rate will be when you convert AUD back to USD when you eventually want to spend your money unless you hedge. the movement in fx rates could easily outweigh any benefit received from higher interest. As far as i am aware the way the hedge is constructed you will lose any benefit from foreign interest. That being said, the 'Carry Trade' is big business. There are plenty of people that borrow yen to invest in AUD.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7d96ffa27caec8d874570b6eff6a9c68", "text": "\"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1281d435dda233f46523c5ab9f4907f2", "text": "A recent survey conducted in Australia shows that although their mining sector is enjoying a boom, services sector is in an opposite condition. Most of the contraction was caused by a decline in new orders among the various players in the services sector while sales and prices also fell. Just 2 out of 9 sub-sectors (namely, personal and recreational services and finance and insurance) included in the survey has grown during the month. The increased activity in the mining sector is not positively affecting the remaining sectors of the local market. The chief executive of the Australian Industry Group (AI Group) said that the contraction in the services industry just shows how narrow is its base of development in the broad market. Several stability in financial states abroad in a period of few months will be favorable for allowing consumer and business confidence to improve, resulting in a gradual increase in spending. More than half of the world’s mining acquisitions in 2011 has involved projects located in US, Australia and Canada. Other buyers include China, India, Russia and Brazil, all of which increased their acquisitions by 42% since 2006. In terms of gold, the average deal is valued at USD 41 million where a premium is almost 50%. Propelling the lucrative market is Australia with 15%, United States with 14% and Canada with 49%. Considering the bigger picture of the industry, PwC seems to be expecting that this year will see record M&A valuations and volumes in the mining sector worldwide. According to the company, sovereign wealth funds tend to have more advantage in winning transactions because of their low cost of capital. PwC is assuming that non-miners like sovereign wealth funds, large pension funds and private equity might reassess their approach to the industry and begin to participate more in M&A.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "ca08e689fcc2c9d406480c808f9c09c8", "text": "This is a somewhat complicated question because it really depends on your personal situation. For example, the following parameters might impact your optimal asset allocation: If you need the money before 3 years, I would suggest keeping almost all of it in cash, CDs, Treasuries, and ultra safe short-term corporate bonds. If however, you have a longer time horizon (and since you're in your 30s you would ideally have decades) you should diversify by investing in many different asset classes. This includes Australian equity, international equity, foreign and domestic debt, commodities, and real estate. Since you have such a long time horizon market timing is not that important.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d6506e6099741d08690d3de3cfc592ce", "text": "Stock market Tends to follow the DJIA and FTSE, so unlikely to see an Australia-only crash, especially while resources are doing so well. If China's growth slows before other ailing sectors improve, a downturn becomes more likely and the potential severity of the downturn increases. Economy A huge question to which I would refer you to Steve Keen: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ See A Fork in the Road. Housing Market It's a bubble, stupid! Seriously, it's as though the Aussies waited for the US to get done and then simply borrowed the copy book. There are a multitude of articles out there about likely outcomes from where the housing market is and where it's going. See this for a sample of what's out there: http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/07/26/aussie-housing-bubble-gets-popped-with-chinese-credit-crash/ Note: All three of the areas you raise - economy, stock mkt, housing - are so intertwined that it's tricky separating them out. A lot of reading on Steve Keen's site can help.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2d542d9c12741601382214e526bfc569", "text": "One more effect that's not yet been mentioned is that companies based in Australia and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, but which do most of their business overseas, will increase their earnings in AU$, since most of what they earn will be in foreign currencies. So their shares are likely to appreciate (in AU$).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "11039963d89778913a087c6edd322ab5", "text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.afr.com/business/banking-and-finance/financial-services/maurice-blackburn-weighs-cba-class-action-20170823-gy235k) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) *** > Law firm Maurice Blackburn and ASX-listed litigation funder IMF Bentham are preparing to launch a class action against Commonwealth Bank of Australia alleging failures to disclose to the stockmarket AUSTRAC&#039;s investigation of its anti money laundering shortcomings. > Disclosure should have been as early as August 17, 2015, the class action will argue - the date CBA released its annual report and a retail booklet for a $5 billion rights issue. > CBA has around 800,000 retail shareholders but under class action law, only those who purchased shares and held some of them during the period of alleged non-disclosure will be able to participate in the action. * [Extended Summary*](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vikty/maurice_blackburn_weighs_cba_class_action/) \| [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~196808 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: CBA^#1 action^#2 class^#3 AUSTRAC^#4 case^#5\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "203eb96b27730739653e88e2b39cee77", "text": "In Australia we have a 50% capital gain discount if you hold the asset for more than 12 months, whether it is in shares, property or other assets. The main reason is to encourage people to invest long-term instead of speculating or trading. The government sees speculation or short term trading as more risky than long term investing for the everyday mum and dad investor, so rewards people it sees taking the lower risk long term view. In my opinion, long term investing, short term trading and speculation can all be risky for someone who is unedutated in the financial markets, and the first rule of investing should be to consider the asset itself and not the tax implications.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f94d44078540e4975937396e59a5facd", "text": "\"I did a little research and found the eligible investments for TFSAs. In this document under heading \"\"Shares of private and other corporations\"\", sub heading \"\"Shares of small business corporations\"\" there is clause about owning less than 10% share and less than $25000 total value of the corporation. Generally, a connected shareholder of a corporation (as defined in subsection 4901(2) of > the Regulations) at any time is a person who owns, directly or indirectly, at that time, 10% or more of the shares of any class of shares of the corporation or of any other corporation related to the corporation. However, where • such a person is dealing at arm's length with the corporation or any other related corporation; and • the aggregate cost amount of all shares of the corporation or any other related corporation the person owns, or is deemed to own, is less than $25,000 that person will not be a connected shareholder of the corporation. For purposes of the 10% and $25,000 tests, the rules in the definition of ìspecified shareholderî in subsection 248(1) apply with the result that certain shares will be deemed to be owned by the shareholder. For example, by virtue of paragraphs (a) and (b), respectively, of that definition, an annuitant, a beneficiary or a subscriber under a plan trust is deemed to own the shares owned by a person with whom the annuitant, beneficiary or subscriber is not dealing at armís length, as well as the shares owned by the plan trust. In addition, any share that • the annuitant, beneficiary, or subscriber under a plan trust; or • a person not dealing at arm's length with any of the above has a right to acquire is also included in the calculation of the percentage and cost amount of the shares held for purposes of the 10% and $25,000 tests pursuant to subsection 4901(2.2) of the Regulations.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "64bf1ced68b1175a711e027b04fc30d3", "text": "For a lot of info on different funds, fees, average returns, etc, see this site. (Not all sections are free - but areas like Best of the Rest are, and they offer good basic starting info.) I think for getting further into the nitty-gritty, for example if a fund is socially responsible, you will need to go to the individual fund sites or read reviews - although sites like Morningstar may help. However, a few funds like this are: HESTA, Cruelty Free Super, and VicSuper (I'm with the latter). It might be useful to check out their sites to orient yourself to the Aussie approach to this issue, and then start searching more broadly from there. And for what it's worth, for a general overview of the Superannuation system, and some nice-to-know info, see this page on the Oz govt website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8ee8e0a25e97cd577e223ab7acd24348", "text": "Virgin and AMP Flexible Super both offer funds that track Australian indexes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dfd51b3ed342ca374cd054ca6b806335", "text": "As I said in the comments, from the SMH article, you will get $3.30 per share you hold in Wotif. The bit about Wotif veing replaced in the S&P ASX200 index by another company has no impact on your shares in Wotif. It just means that the index (the amalgamation of 200 companies) will have one drop out (Wotif) and another replace it (Healthscope).", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
9b83a52cbf50c34dba1232c7dd417dc4	How does AMT/state taxes work for stock options in California?	[ { "docid": "e03ee94d9b1ed2237199cb7764bd1908", "text": "Does this technically mean that she has to pay AMT on $400,000? Yes. Well, not exactly 400,000. She paid $1 per share, so 390,000. And if so, is %28 the AMT for this sum? (0.28 * $400,000 = $112,000)? Or does she have to include her salary on top of that before calculating AMT? (Suppose in the fake example that her salary is $100,000 after 401k). All her income is included in calculating the AMT, minus the AMT exemption amount. The difference between the regular calculated tax and the calculated AMT is then added to the regular tax. Note that some deductions allowed for the regular calculation are not allowed for the AMT calculation. How does California state tax come into play for this? California has its own AMT rules, and in California any stock option exercise is subject to AMT, unless you sell the stock in the same year. Here's a nice and easy to understand write up on the issue from the FTB. When would she have to pay the taxes for this huge AMT? Tax is due when income is received (i.e.: when you exercise the options). However, most people don't actually pay the tax then, but rather discover the huge tax liability when they prepare to submit their tax return on April 15th. To avoid that, I'd suggest trying to estimate the tax and adjust your withholding using form W4 so that by the end of the year you have enough withheld. Suppose in the worst case, the company goes completely under. Does she get her massive amounts of tax back? Or if it's tax credit, where can I find more info on this? That would be capital loss, and only up to $3K a year of capital loss can be deducted from the general income. So it will continue offsetting other capital gains or being deducted $3K a year until it all clears out. Is there any way to avoid this tax? (Can she file an 83b election?) You asked and answered. Yes, filing 83(b) election is the way to go to avoid this situation. This should be done within 30 days of the grant, and submitted to the IRS, and a copy attached to the tax return of the grant year. However, if you're considering exercise - that ship has likely sailed a long time ago. Any advice for Little Susie on how she can even afford to pay that much tax on something she can't even sell anytime soon? Don't exercise the options? Should she take out a loan? (e.g. I've heard that in the extreme case, you can find angel investors who are willing to pay all your taxes/strike price, but want 50% of your equity? I've also heard that you can sell your illiquid shares on SecondMarket?) Is she likely to get audited by IRS for pulling something like this? You can take a loan secured by shares you own, there's nothing illegal in it. If you transfer your shares - the IRS only cares about the taxes being paid, however that may be illegal depending on the terms and the conditions of the grant. You'll need to talk to a lawyer about your situation. I suggest talking to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State) about the specifics concerning your situation.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "d04463611f1cc42a2614271873cb0e89", "text": "I don't know the legal framework for RSUs, so I'm not sure what is mandatory and what is chosen by the company issuing them. I recently reviewed one companies offering and it basically looked like a flat purchase of stock on the VEST date. So even if I got a zillion shares for $1 GRANTED to me, if it was 100 shares that vested at $100 on the 1st, then I would owe tax on the market value on the day of vest. Further, the company would withhold 25% of the VEST for federal taxes and 10% for state taxes, if I lived in a state with income tax. The withholding rate was flat, regardless of what my actual tax rate was. Capital gains on the change from the market value on the VEST date was calculated as short-term or long-term based on the time since the VEST date. So if my 100 shares went up to $120, I would pay the $20 difference as short term or long term based on how long I had owned them since the VEST. That said, I don't know if this is universal. Your HR folks should be able to help answer at least some of these questions, though I know their favorite response when they don't know is that you should consult a tax professional. Good luck.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "7f1e8c5ba2bbd1302597d9a89ab0c762", "text": "In the question you cited, I assumed immediate exercise, that is why you understood that I was talking about 30 days after grant. I actually mentioned that assumption in the answer. Sec. 83(b) doesn't apply to options, because options are not assets per se. It only applies to restricted stocks. So the 30 days start counting from the time you get the restricted stock, which is when you early-exercise. As to the AMT, the ISO spread will be considered AMT income in the year of the exercise, if you file the 83(b). For NQSO it is ordinary income. That's the whole point of the election. You can find more detailed explanation on this website.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "39e8a4a5b4b7325c288798c4cb372f33", "text": "If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9aab9a6ed51b608b41a01b83d2fdaf78", "text": "I agree with the other posters that you will need to seek the advice of a tax attorney specializing in corporate taxation. Here is an idea to investigate: Could you sell the company, and thereby turn the profits that are taxed as ordinary income into a long-term capital gain (taxed at 15%, plus state income tax, if any)? You can determine the value of a profitable business using discounted cash flow analysis, even if you expect that the revenue stream will dry up due to product obsolescence or expiry of licensing agreements. To avoid the capital gains taxes (especially if you live in a high-tax state like California), you could also transfer the stock to a Charitable Remainder Trust. The CRT then sells the shares to the third-party acquirer, invests the proceeds and pays you annual distributions (similar to an annuity). The flip side of a sale is that now the acquiring party will be stuck with the taxes payable on your company's profits (while being forced to amortize the purchase price over multiple years -- 15, if I recall correctly), which will factor into the valuation. However, it is likely that the acquirer has better ways to mitigate the tax impact (e.g. the acquirer is a company currently operating at a loss, and therefore can cancel out the tax liabilities from your company's profits). One final caveat: Don't let the tax tail wag the business dog. In other words, focus your energies on extracting the maximum value from your company, rather than trying to find convoluted tax saving strategies. You might find that making an extra dollar in profits is easier than saving fifty cents in taxes.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "37fc06a986a153ff45385b6d78c39786", "text": "There's an odd anomaly that often occurs with shares acquired through company plans via ESPP or option purchase. The general situation is that the share value above strike price or grant price may become ordinary income, but a sale below the price at day the shares are valued is a capital loss. e.g. in an ESPP offering, I have a $10 purchase price, but at the end of the offering, the shares are valued at $100. Unless I hold the shares for an additional year, the sale price contains ordinary W2 income. So, if I see the shares falling and sell for $50, I have a tax bill for $90 of W2 income, but a $50 capital loss. Tax is due on $90 (and for 1K shares, $90,000 which can be a $30K hit) but that $50K loss can only be applied to cap gains, or $3K/yr of income. In the dotcom bubble, there were many people who had million dollar tax bills and the value of the money netted from the sale couldn't even cover the taxes. And $1M in losses would take 300 years at $3K/yr. The above is one reason the lockup date expiration is why shares get sold. And one can probably profit on the bigger companies stock. Edit - see Yelp down 3% following expiration of 180 day IPO lock-up period, for similar situation.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0135bf2ab914c53905961d531f2b4ae1", "text": "My understanding was that if they cash out they only have to pay capital gains tax on it, which is lower than income tax for their bracket. You also have to think about tax on dividends from these stock options, which is only 15%, which is paltry to regular incometax rate that the rich pay on their salaries. According to Wikipedia: Congress passed the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA), which included some of the cuts Bush requested and which he signed into law on May 28, 2003. Under the new law, qualified dividends are taxed at the same rate as long-term capital gains, which is 15 percent for most individual taxpayers Anyways, SOMETHING needs to be done.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f8985859319a850622a66372ac3ac946", "text": "I don't see a tag for United States, so I'm having to assume this is US taxes. It doesn't matter what app you use, IRS trades are all calculated the same. First, you have to report each trade on a 8949 and from that the totals go into a schedule D. Short term trades are stocks that you've kept exactly one year or less, long term trades are for 1 year + 1 day or more. Trades where you sold a stock for a loss, then bought that stock back again under 30 days don't get to count as a loss. This only affects realized capital gains and losses, you don't count fees. First, take all of your short term gains then offset them by all of your short term losses. Do the same for long term gains and losses. Short and long term gains are taxed at different rates. You can deduct losses from short term to your long term and vice versa. Then you can deduct the total losses up to $3000 (household, $1500 married, filing separately) per year on your regular income taxes or other dividend taxes. If you have over $3000 in losses, then you need to carry that over to subsequent years. Edited per Dave's comments: thanks Dave", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b29640c8014917d91e8d24c91f1d8522", "text": "You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b3371f553b12a1b7800b33aa60fbd97b", "text": "Yes (most likely). If you are exchanging investments for cash, you will have to pay tax on that - disregarding capital losses, capital loss carryovers, AGI thresholds, and other special rules (which there is no indication of in your question). You will have to calculate the gain on Schedule D, and report that as income on your 1040. This is the case whether you buy different or same stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d3654d20ab2b1704565386801ebed97b", "text": "\"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "826d062a6cf54470248a68681ae46fc4", "text": "\"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \"\"collectible\"\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2c3f715ad21d7342bb9dcc0b681bad51", "text": "\"As ApplePie discusses, \"\"tax bracket\"\" without any modifiers refers to a single jurisdiction's marginal tax rate. In your case, this is either your California's \"\"tax bracket\"\" or your Federal \"\"tax bracket\"\" (not including marginal Social Security and Medicare taxes). But if someone says \"\"combined state and federal tax bracket\"\", they probably mean the combination of your state and federal income tax brackets (again, lot including sales taxes, business and occupational taxes, social security taxes, and medicare taxes). The math to combine the state and federal marginal tax rates is a bit tricky, because most people can deduct either their state and local income taxes, or their state and local general sales taxes when computing their income for federal income tax purposes. (The federal \"\"alternative minimum tax\"\" restricts this deduction for some people.) For a single person earning $ 100,000 of salaries and wages in California, whose state income taxes are close to their standard deduction, the calculations for the combined marginal income tax rate look something like this: As mentioned above, this understates the tax bite on marginal \"\"earned income\"\". To find the true marginal rate, we need to add in Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes, sales taxes, and business & occupation taxes. The Social Security and Medicare taxes are sometimes called \"\"self employment taxes\"\". This math omits unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance, because those taxes are typically capped well below $ 100,000 per year of income. This math also omits B & O taxes, because this question is California specific. If an employer wishes to increase an employee's pay by $ 1,076.50, the first $ 76.50 will go to the employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The remaining $ 1,000.00 will be subject to the combined marginal income tax rate discussed above, plus will have $ 76.50 go to the employee's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes. The employee might buy some extra things with some of their extra money, and pay sales tax on them. In 2016, a 9 % sales tax rate was common in California's largest cities. The IRS estimated that (for a single person with no dependents making $ 100,000 per year who did not buy a boat, RV, motor vehicle, or major home construction), about 9 % of their marginal gross income was subject to sales tax.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "79151757da264ff03765eb054820c95d", "text": "The rules are complex. See How to Deduct IRA Losses, at Smart Money. You must liquidate the entire account (bad) and the loss is subject to the amount exceeding 2% of your AGI. If you are subject to AMT, you may lose any or all of that remaining amount.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "56596fac5107f6f0af730a04194202f2", "text": "\"A little terminology: Grant: you get a \"\"gift\"\" with strings attached. \"\"Grant\"\" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the \"\"gift\"\" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "b7976020809b0020375b57fb5be4dbcb", "text": "Is the remaining amount tax free? As in, if the amount shown (which I can sell) on etrade is $5000 then if I sell the entire shares will my bank account be increased by $5000? The stocks they sell are withholding. So let's say you had $7000 of stock and they sold $2000 for taxes. That leaves you with $5000. But the actual taxes paid might be more or less than $2000. They go in the same bucket as the rest of your withholding. If too much is withheld, you get a refund. Too little and you owe them. Way too little and you have to pay penalties. At the end of the year, you will show $7000 as income and $2000 as withheld for taxes from that transaction. You may also have a capital gain if the stock increases in price. They do not generally withhold on stock sales, as they don't necessarily know what was your gain and what was your loss. You usually have to handle that yourself. The main point that I wanted to make is that the sale is not tax free. It's just that you already had tax withheld. It may or may not be enough.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
f3475e18af17d4d4fa3669c9762e43e6	Should I invest my money in an ISA or Government bonds? (Or any other suggestion)	[ { "docid": "463fa73a0da279bb43beb2b3d9493116", "text": "\"So you are off to a really good start. Congratulations on being debt free and having a nice income. Being an IT contractor can be financially rewarding, but also have some risks to it much like investing. With your disposable income I would not shy away from investing in further training through sites like PluralSite or CodeSchool to improve weak skills. They are not terribly expensive for a person in your situation. If you were loaded down with debt and payments, the story would be different. Having an emergency fund will help you be a good IT contractor as it adds stability to your life. I would keep £10K or so in a boring savings account. Think of it not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. Having such a fund allows you to go after a high paying job you might fail at, or invest with impunity. I would encourage you to take an intermediary step: Moving out on your own. I would encourage renting before buying even if it is just a room in someone else's home. I would try to be out of the house in less than 3 months. Being on your own helps you mature in ways that can only be accomplished by being on your own. It will also reduce the culture shock of buying your own home or entering into an adult relationship. I would put a minimum of £300/month in growth stock mutual funds. Keeping this around 15% of your income is a good metric. If available you may want to put this in tax favored retirement accounts. (Sorry but I am woefully ignorant of UK retirement savings). This becomes your retire at 60 fund. (Starting now, you can retire well before 68.) For now stick to an index fund, and once it gets to 25K, you may want to look to diversify. For the rest of your disposable income I'd invest in something safe and secure. The amount of your disposable income will change, presumably, as you will have additional expenses for rent and food. This will become your buy a house fund. This is something that should be safe and secure. Something like a bond fund, money market, dividend producing stocks, or preferred stocks. I am currently doing something like this and have 50% in a savings account, 25% in a \"\"Blue chip index fund\"\", and 25% in a preferred stock fund. This way you have some decent stability of principle while also having some ability to grow. Once you have that built up to about 12K and you feel comfortable you can start shopping for a house. You may want to be at the high end of your area, so you should try and save at least 10%; or, you may want to be really weird and save the whole thing and buy your house for cash. If you are still single you may want to rent a room or two so your home can generate income. Here in the US there can be other ways to generate income from your property. One example is a home that has a separate area (and room) to park a boat. A boat owner will pay some decent money to have a place to park their boat and there is very little impact to the owner. Be creative and perhaps find a way where a potential property could also produce income. Good luck, check back in with progress and further questions! Edit: After some reading, ISA seem like a really good deal.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8d86c1fb4374ae63b11e53ce22bac604", "text": "There are a number of UK banks that offer what passes for reasonable interest on an amount of cash held in their current accounts. I would suggest that you look into these. In the UK the first £1000 of bank or building society interest is paid tax-free for basic rate taxpayers (£500 for higher rate tax-payers) so if your interest income is below these levels then there is no point in investing in a cash ISA as the interest rate is often lower. At the moment Santander-123 bank account pays 1.5% on up to £20000 and Nationwide do 5% on up to £2500. A good source if information on the latest deals is Martin Lewis' Moneysaving Expert Website", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3309463d722dd256925d15d55a2de6a7", "text": "I recommend investing in precious metals like gold, considering the economic cycle we're in now. Government bonds are subject to possible default and government money historically tends to crumble in value, whereas gold and the metals tend to rise in value with the commodies. Stocks tend to do well, but right now most of them are a bit overvalued and they're very closely tied to overvalued currencies and unstable governments with lots of debt. I would stick to gold right now, if you're planning on investing for more than a month or so.", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "32e71fb321d39a1fceb84c0481f32a5c", "text": "Put £50 away as often as possible, and once it's built up to £500, invest in a stockmarket ETF. Repeat until you retire.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e07de22b589af6035a2298aff58498b6", "text": "US government bonds and bonds issued by companies with a safe track record and consistently high ratings, for the past years, by credit agencies. But the time line of your investment, which is quite short, maybe a factor of choosing the right bonds. If you are not going to touch the money then CD maybe an option or an interest bearing savings account.", "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": "c92b620796eec1aea3d8d925390cb015", "text": "\"Your dec ision is actually rather more complex than it first appears. The problem is that the limits on what you can pay into the HTB ISA might make it less attractive - it will all depend. Currently, you can put £15k/year into a normal ISA (Either Cash, or Stocks and Share or a combination). The HTB ISA only allows £200/month = £2,400/year. Since you can only pay into one Cash ISA in any one year you are going to lose out on the other £12,600 that you could save and grow tax free. Having said that, the 25% contribution by the govt. is extremely attractive and probably outweighs any tax saving. It is not so clear whether you can contribute to a HTB ISA (cash) and put the rest of your allowance into a Stocks and Shares ISA - if you can, you should seriously consider doing so. Yes this exposes you to a riskier investment (shares can go down as well as up etc.) but the benefits can be significant (and the gains are tax free). As said above, the rules are that money you have paid into an ISA in earlier years is separate - you can't pay any more into the \"\"old\"\" one whilst paying into a \"\"new\"\" one but you don't have to do anything with the \"\"old\"\" ISA. But you might WANT to do something since institutions are amazingly mean (underhand) in their treatment of customers. You may well find that the interest rate you get on your \"\"old\"\" ISA becomes less competitive over time. You should (Must) check every year what rate you are getting and whether you can get a better rate in a different ISA - if there is a better rate ISA and if it allows transfers IN, you should arrange to make the trasnfer - you ABSOLUTELY MUST TRANSFER between ISAs - never even think of taking the money out and then trying to pay it in to another ISA, it must be transferred directly between ISAs. So overall, yes, stop paying into the \"\"old\"\" ISA, open a new HTB ISA next year and if you can pay in the maximum do so. But if you can afford to save more, you might be able to open a Stocks and Shares ISA as well and pay into that too (max £15k into the pair in one year). And then do not \"\"forget\"\" about the \"\"old\"\" ISA(s) you will probably need to move all the money you have in the \"\"old\"\" one(s) regualrly into new ISAs to obtain a sensible rate. You might do well to read up on all this a lot more - I strongly recommend the site http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ which gives a lot of helpful advice about everything to do with money (no I don't have any association with them).\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3bc01e681551f89397ada2de94172c65", "text": "\"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250. Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit. We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%. The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but \"\"1%, bad.\"\"\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "00d2deabad09eee0b1cac143d60f0dd5", "text": "\"Assuming you can understand and emotionally handle the volatility, a good indeed fund would be wise. These are low fee funds which perform as well as our better than most managed investments and since they don't cost as much, they typically out perform most other investment vehicles. The S&P 500 is traded as SPDR. Another option is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which trades as DIA. Average returns over the long term are 10-12%. If you expect to need the money in the short term (5-8 years), you have a non trivial chance of needing to pull the money out when the market is down, so if that's unacceptable to you, choose something with a guarantee. If you're terrified of losing money in the short term, don't think you can handle waiting for the market to go up, especially when every news caster is crying hysterically that the End of Economic Life on Earth is here, then consider a CD at your bank. CDs return much lower rates (around 2% right now) but do not go down in value ever. However, you need to lock your money into them for months to years at a time. Some people might tell you to buy a bond fund. That's horrible advice. Bond funds get lower returns AND have no guarantee that you won't lose money on them, unlike aactual bonds. As you're new to investing, I encourage you to read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Gramm.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "3ef09c35eb813a018624419292a029ba", "text": "If you want the flexibility to make additional payments you should favour a flexible ISA. Shop around on comparators and you should be able to find a few that responds to your minimum interest rates Fixed-term ISAs are comparable to a bond: money goes in on day one and then no more deposit are allowed. The rate is fixed for the period. Even though they have a fixed you would still be able to withdraw cash but this would cost you an interest penalty. Not being able to withdraw money is asking the banks to take responsibility on your behalf... They won't do that", "title": "" }, { "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": "2a802bbb4b1d55bf32ecbac3f41fdc5f", "text": "As you are in UK, you should think in terms of Tax Free (interest and accumulated capital gains) ISA type investments for the long term AND/OR open a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) account where you get back the tax you have paid on the money you deposit for your old age. Pensions are the best bet for money you do not need at present while ISAs are suitable for short term 5 years plus or longer.", "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": "3f665baca9e2e42ab39bf00e9fb75c8b", "text": "Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "5c207d1cf5855655fedc7a150e083502", "text": "A bond fund like VBMFX or similar I think are a good choice. Bonds are far less volatile and less risky than stocks. With your 1-2 year time frame, I say definitely stay away from stocks.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "e4227383817fb1d7e34405d771bee381", "text": "Thats a very open question, Depends on the risk you are willing to take with the money, or the length of time you are willing sit on it, or if you have a specific goal like buying a house. Some banks offer high(ish) rate savings accounts http://www.bankaccountsavings.co.uk/calculator with a switching bonus that could be a good start. (combining the nationwide flexdirect and regular saver) if you want something more long term - safe option is bonds, medium risk option is Index funds (kind of covers all 3 risks really), risky option is Stocks & shares. For these probably a S&S ISA for a tax efficient option. Also LISA or HtB ISA are worth considering if you want to buy a house in the future.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c16ecfe43336732053c526fee708fbb1", "text": "\"You have a large number of possible choices to make, and a lot of it does depend upon what interests you when you are older. The first thing to note is the difference between ISAs and pension-contribution schemes tax wise, which is of course the taxation point. When you contribute to your pensions scheme, it is done before taxation, which is why when you draw from your pension scheme you have to pay income tax. Conversely, your ISA is something you contribute to after you have already paid income tax - so besides the 10% tax on dividends if you hold any assets which may them, it is tax free when you draw on it regardless of how much you have accrued over the years. Now, when it comes to the question \"\"what is the best way to save\"\", the answer is almost certainly going to be filling your pension to the point where you're going to retire just on the edge of the limit, and then putting the rest into ISAs. This way you will not be paying the higher rates of tax associated with breaking the lifetime limit, but also get maximum contributions into your various schemes. There is an exception to this of course, which is the return on investment. If you do not have access to a SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension), you may be able to receive a far higher return on investment when using a Stocks & Shares ISA, in which case the fact that you have to pay taxes prior to funding it may not make a significant difference. The other issue you have, as others have mentioned is rent. While now you may be enjoying London, it is in my opinion quite likely that will change when you get older, London has a very high-cost of living, even compared to the home counties, and many of its benefits are not relevant to someone who is retired. When you retire, it is quite possible that you will see it fit to take a large sum out of your various savings, and purchase a house, which means that regardless of how much you are drawing out you will be able to have somewhere to live. Renting is fine when you are working, but when you have a certain amount of (admittedly growing) funds that have to last you indefinitely, who knows if it will last you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "61e08f0d238c2474a7eb648aac96c339", "text": "\"TL;DR - go with something like Barry Ritholtz's All Century Portfolio: 20 percent total U.S stock market 5 percent U.S. REITs 5 percent U.S. small cap value 15 percent Pacific equities 15 percent European equities 10 percent U.S. TIPs 10 percent U.S. high yield corp bonds 20 percent U.S. total bond UK property market are absurdly high and will be crashing a lot very soon The price to rent ratio is certainly very high in the UK. According to this article, it takes 48 years of rent to pay for the same apartment in London. That sounds like a terrible deal to me. I have no idea about where prices will go in the future, but I wouldn't voluntarily buy in that market. I'm hesitant to invest in stocks for the fear of losing everything A stock index fund is a collection of stocks. For example the S&P 500 index fund is a collection of the largest 500 US public companies (Apple, Google, Shell, Ford, etc.). If you buy the S&P 500 index, the 500 largest US companies would have to go bankrupt for you to \"\"lose everything\"\" - there would have to be a zombie apocalypse. He's trying to get me to invest in Gold and Silver (but mostly silver), but I neither know anything about gold or silver, nor know anyone who takes this approach. This is what Jeremy Siegel said about gold in late 2013: \"\"I’m not enthusiastic about gold because I think gold is priced for either hyperinflation or the end of the world.\"\" Barry Ritholtz also speaks much wisdom about gold. In short, don't buy it and stop listening to your friend. Is buying a property now with the intention of selling it in a couple of years for profit (and repeat until I have substantial amount to invest in something big) a bad idea? If the home price does not appreciate, will this approach save you or lose you money? In other words, would it be profitable to substitute your rent payment for a mortgage payment? If not, you will be speculating, not investing. Here's an articles that discusses the difference between speculating and investing. I don't recommend speculating.\"", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
afb9b8b269d8aad450b387d874ade02d	Long term saving: Shares, Savings Account or Fund	[ { "docid": "9e6a9e8163630b92f5d1d506c5e99bda", "text": "\"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a \"\"high net worth\"\" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!\"", "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": "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": "2e5bb05701d5b40caffbc5d98be9d723", "text": "Domini offers such a fund. It might suit you, or it might include things you wish to avoid. I'm not judging your goals, but would suggest that it might be tough to find a fund that has the same values as you. If you choose individual stocks, you might have to do a lot of reading, and decide if it's all or none, i.e. if a company seems to do well, but somehow has an tiny portion in a sector you don't like, do you dismiss them? In the US, Costco, for example, is a warehouse club, and treats employees well. A fair wage, benefits, etc. But they have a liquor store at many locations. Absent the alcohol, would you research every one of their suppliers?", "title": "" }, { "docid": "d7aea27d7e37bca3b3904e441c55bf93", "text": "@Victor above has provided a very good answer, I shall try and highlight some differences. The differences are specific to a country, however, it does offer some insight regarding the difference between investing in retirement fund vis-a-vis investing in stock directly: In many countries the retirement fund is mandated by the govt. and has to be invested in (in form of direct deduction from salary) ~ Investing in stock is up to the individual In many cases (if not most) capital gain/interest accrual in retirement funds are not taxable ~ Depending upon current laws capital gain (long term/short term) from stocks are taxable Retirement funds are managed and are (in general) more stable in their returns ~ Returns from direct stock investments are dependent on investment decisions of the investor Retirement funds tend to, (though this is very country specific) return somewhat less than market, as an example, in India Public Provident Fund (PPF)/Employee Provident Fund (EPF) return 8.68% tax free ~ As for direct investment on stocks, Nifty has returned approx. 17% CAGR over 15-20 years. Given the above, if you can invest in stock by taking informed calls and you have a good understanding of the financial markets and their underpinning and (probably) looking at long term investment, then investing directly in stock could fetch returns that might not be paralled by retirement funds. If on the other hand, if you feel investing in stock is not for you, then it probably is better to stick with retirement funds and other low risk investments. Either way, you probably have to (and may be you should) carry some portion of your portfolio as retirement funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "289135f42bf8602686098991399ef023", "text": "When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones. If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider. That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones. They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to. But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested. The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a1dda3980b8a649a668891403f564f85", "text": "You really have asked two different questions here: I'm interested in putting away some money for my family Then I urge you to read up on investing. Improving your knowledge in investing is an investment that will very likely pay off in the long-term - this can't be answered here in full length, pointers to where to start are asset allocation and low-cost index funds. Read serious books, read stackexchange posts, and try avoid the Wall Street marketing machine. Also, before considering any long term investments, build an emergency fund (e.g. 6 months worth of your expenses) in case you need some liquid money (loss of job etc.), and also helps you sleep better at night. What things are important to consider before making this kind of investment? Mainly the risk (other answers already elaborate on the details). Investing in a single stock is quite risky, even more so when your income also depends on that company. Framed another way: which percentage of your portfolio should you put into a single stock? (which has been answered in this post). If after considering all things you think it's a good deal, take the offer, but don't put a too great percentage of you overall savings into it, limit it to say 10% (maybe even less).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "84e47b81c35727ec73c7b526568e29b0", "text": "Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "aed6c8a2de8cc877cb499bc37e5253b8", "text": "\"This is basically the short-term/long-term savings question in another form: savings that you hope are long-term but which may turn short-term very suddenly. You can never completely eliminate the risk of being forced to draw on long term savings during a period when the market is doing Something Unpleasant that would force you to take a loss (or right before it does Something Pleasant that you'd like to be fully invested during). You can only pick the degree of risk that you're willing to accept, balancing that hazard of forced sales against the lower-but-more-certain returns you'd get from a money market or equivalent. I'm considered a moderately aggressive investor -- which doesn't mean I'm pushing the boundaries on what I'm buying (not by a long shot!), but which does mean I'm willing to keep more of my money in the market and I'm more likely to hold or buy into a dip than to sell off to try to minimize losses. That level of risk-tolerance also means I'm willing to maintain a ready-cash pool which is sufficient to handle expected emergencies (order of $10K), and not become overly paranoid about lost opportunity value if it turns out that I need to pull a few thou out of the investments. I've got decent health insurance, which helps reduce that risk. I'm also not particularly paranoid about the money. On my current track, I should be able to maintain my current lifestyle \"\"forever\"\" without ever touching the principal, as long as inflation and returns remain vaguely reasonable. Having to hit the account for a larger emergency at an Inconvenient Time wouldn't be likely to hurt me too much -- delaying retirement for a year or two, perhaps. It's just money. Emergencies are one of the things it's for. I try not to be stupid about it, but I also try not to stress about it more than I must.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "19b77118c82ee59413679b2e08b53b94", "text": "I have read in many personal finance books that stocks are a great investment for the long term, because on average they go up 5-7% every year. This has been true for the last 100 years for the S&P500 index, but is there reason to believe this trend will continue indefinitely into the future? It has also been wrong for 20+ year time periods during those last 100 years. It's an average, and you can live your whole career at a loss. There are many things to support the retention of the average, over the next 100 years. I think the quip is out of scope of your actual investment philosophy. But basically there are many ways to lower your cost basis, by reinvesting dividends, selling options, or contributing to your position at any price from a portion of your income, and by inflation, and by the growth of the world economy. With a low enough cost basis then a smaller percentage gain in the index gives you a magnified profit.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2beabeee5253deb288ef55349de184f8", "text": "\"A lot of ISA's allow both shares and funds as well as gilts, Hargreaves Lansdown comes to mind as does the Alliance Trust. Some penalise (charging wise) securities vs UT (unit trusts) funds but in that case just go for a low cost IT (Investment Trust) ISA and hold individual shares as well as pooled investments in the Big IT's. I think you might have to be an \"\"approved investor\"\" to buy gilts.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "9a02969f1527aa7d249d33a3e8cebb4e", "text": "The stock market, as a whole, is extremely volatile. During any 3 year period, the market could go up or down. However, and this is the important point,the market as a whole has historically been a good long term investment. If you need the money in 5 years, then you want to put it in something less volatile (so there's less chance of losing it). If you need the money in 50 years, put it in the market; the massive growth over those 50 years will more than make up for any short term drops, and you will probably come out ahead. Once you get closer to retirement age, you want to take the money out of stocks and put it in something safer; essentially locking in your profit, and protecting yourself from the possibility of further loss. Something else to consider: everyone lost money in 2008. There were no safe investments (well, ok, there were a few... but not enough to talk about). Given that, why would you choose another investment over stocks? Taking a 50% loss after decades of 10% annual returns is still better than a 50% loss after decades of 5% growth (in fact, after 20 years of growth, it's still 250% better - and that ratio will only improve the longer you leave it in).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4478136b0fb1680b61b170be6e8bfb0f", "text": "Restricting the discussion only to Internet hacking: In Option 2 or Option 3, you have to realize that the funds are credited to a specific Registered Bank Account. So the max damage an hacker can do is liquidate your holding. In Option 2, the Banking Internet Login and the Broker Internet Login will be different, For example HDFC Bank and HDFC Securities. In Option 3, if you choose your Bank, then it will be the same Login. If you choose a Non-Bank as provider then there is a different login. The risk is no different to investing in shares. In the end its up to an individual, there is nothing that stops you from opening multiple accounts in option 2 and option 3 and buying the stocks worth particular value. From an overall risk point of view; Option 2 seems best suited as the units are held in a Demat from by a Depository.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c16ecfe43336732053c526fee708fbb1", "text": "\"You have a large number of possible choices to make, and a lot of it does depend upon what interests you when you are older. The first thing to note is the difference between ISAs and pension-contribution schemes tax wise, which is of course the taxation point. When you contribute to your pensions scheme, it is done before taxation, which is why when you draw from your pension scheme you have to pay income tax. Conversely, your ISA is something you contribute to after you have already paid income tax - so besides the 10% tax on dividends if you hold any assets which may them, it is tax free when you draw on it regardless of how much you have accrued over the years. Now, when it comes to the question \"\"what is the best way to save\"\", the answer is almost certainly going to be filling your pension to the point where you're going to retire just on the edge of the limit, and then putting the rest into ISAs. This way you will not be paying the higher rates of tax associated with breaking the lifetime limit, but also get maximum contributions into your various schemes. There is an exception to this of course, which is the return on investment. If you do not have access to a SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension), you may be able to receive a far higher return on investment when using a Stocks & Shares ISA, in which case the fact that you have to pay taxes prior to funding it may not make a significant difference. The other issue you have, as others have mentioned is rent. While now you may be enjoying London, it is in my opinion quite likely that will change when you get older, London has a very high-cost of living, even compared to the home counties, and many of its benefits are not relevant to someone who is retired. When you retire, it is quite possible that you will see it fit to take a large sum out of your various savings, and purchase a house, which means that regardless of how much you are drawing out you will be able to have somewhere to live. Renting is fine when you are working, but when you have a certain amount of (admittedly growing) funds that have to last you indefinitely, who knows if it will last you.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "2a802bbb4b1d55bf32ecbac3f41fdc5f", "text": "As you are in UK, you should think in terms of Tax Free (interest and accumulated capital gains) ISA type investments for the long term AND/OR open a SIPP (Self Invested Pension Plan) account where you get back the tax you have paid on the money you deposit for your old age. Pensions are the best bet for money you do not need at present while ISAs are suitable for short term 5 years plus or longer.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "6ae1356d942a1f11b3d2191aadab1c0b", "text": "Placing bets on targeted sectors of the market totally makes sense in my opinion. Especially if you've done research, with a non-biased eye, that convinces you those sectors will continue to outperform. However, the funds you've boxed in red all appear to be actively managed funds (I only double-checked on the first.) There is a bit of research showing that very few active managers consistently beat an index over the long term. By buying these funds, especially since you hope to hold for decades, you are placing bets that these managers maintain their edge over an equivalent index. This seems unlikely to be a winning bet the longer you hold the position. Perhaps there are no sector index funds for the sectors or focuses you have? But if there were, and it was my money that I planned to park for the long term, I'd pick the index fund over the active managed fund. Index funds also have an advantage in costs or fees. They can charge substantially less than an actively managed fund does. And fees can be a big drag on total return.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8e1d0b430b37edba8ebb7bd4beea39ae", "text": "First of all I recommend reading this short e-book that is aimed at young investors. The book is written for American investors but they same rules apply with different terms (e.g. the equivalent tax-free savings wrappers are called ISAs in the UK). If you don't anticipate needing the money any time soon then your best bet is likely a stocks and share ISA in an aggressive portfolio of assets. You are probably better off with an even more aggressive asset allocation than the one in the book, e.g. 0-15% bond funds 85-100% equity funds. In the long term, this will generate the most income. For an up-to-date table of brokers I recommend Monevator. If you are planning to use the money as a deposit on a mortgage then your best bet might be a Help to Buy ISA, you'll have to shop around for the best deals. If you would rather have something more liquid that you can draw into to cover expenses while at school, you can either go for a more conservative ISA (100% bond funds or even a cash ISA) or try to find a savings account with a comparable interest rate.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "bdcbdebfa75cc61181f0c0a5d5767a76", "text": "I think small sums invested regularly over long-term can do good for you, things to consider: I would go with an index fund and contribute there there regularly.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa
4661de2fda3d73d77500d9d5594d65be	First time investor and online brokerage accounts	[ { "docid": "8bef842658c344351cd69313550198b3", "text": "\"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1fd4eac4a4af6f69fb8949b1a94261c8", "text": "Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "dc05d7b2777117feb3464404c7227a7a", "text": "\"Most mutual funds are designed to make the investment banks that sell them money, not to make investers money. They do this by taking significant fees out. Because they make lots of money on these funds, they advertise them a lot, and give them important-sounding names, like \"\"Advanced technology global diversity long term appreciation\"\". Index funds are the exception; they attempt to mirror the performance of a specific index (such as the S&P 500 index). They generally have very low fees.\"", "title": "" } ]	[ { "docid": "9a0fb227580f6297fca125fd4753dab0", "text": "If you go through the web pages of some online brokers, you will find out that some of them allow you to manage friends/relatives accounts from your account as a trusteer. That should really solve your underlying problem, you will need only one login, etc. (Example: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/ff/en/main.php) If I understand it right it will even allow you to make one trade splitting the cost and returns among the other accounts, but you would have to verify that. Anyways, that will save you a lot of trouble and your broker can probably help you with the legal necessities.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4b6b44831c59cf35dcdf3a81a0cb0e62", "text": "Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4478136b0fb1680b61b170be6e8bfb0f", "text": "Restricting the discussion only to Internet hacking: In Option 2 or Option 3, you have to realize that the funds are credited to a specific Registered Bank Account. So the max damage an hacker can do is liquidate your holding. In Option 2, the Banking Internet Login and the Broker Internet Login will be different, For example HDFC Bank and HDFC Securities. In Option 3, if you choose your Bank, then it will be the same Login. If you choose a Non-Bank as provider then there is a different login. The risk is no different to investing in shares. In the end its up to an individual, there is nothing that stops you from opening multiple accounts in option 2 and option 3 and buying the stocks worth particular value. From an overall risk point of view; Option 2 seems best suited as the units are held in a Demat from by a Depository.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "94fd0ac68a72a65937095c6edeaedb74", "text": "Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%", "title": "" }, { "docid": "f05e7457666194747ad2a2fffb8275aa", "text": "Now the question: is advisable for a beginner to speculate in CfDs? No. If not, is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money? In the US, and I'm sure this carries to the UK, most (if not all) big brokerages (Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Vanguard, etc) have a set of funds that are zero load and zero commission though the fund will still have an expense ratio. This is the Barclay's UK page related to zero cost investing in the Barclay's funds. Barclay's might not be the right fit for a beginner as it seems there is a hefty account minimum, but the same zero commission concept exists in the UK. Again, most of these brokerages will also have an extremely low expense ratio S&P index (or some other market index) fund. As a beginner that's where you should start. This is not meant to patronize beginners, it's just math. Assume your trade commission is £7. If your investment is £100, you'll lose £7 right up front to the buy commission, then another £7 when you sell. Lets say your position raises 10%, you'll be at a net loss of 4.7%. Meanwhile if you put your £100 in to a 0.1% expense fee mutual fund with no transaction commissions and no load fees, after a 10% gain you'd owe £0.11 due to the expense ratio at the of the year. You'd have £109.89. Beginners get crushed by fees and commission. It is not advisable, by any stretch of the imagination, to attempt to day trade or actively manage a portfolio of any sort of security; and commodities and currency are the WORST place to start.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "8fe49e3548a484a14f418f2cf0cdc195", "text": "I wanted to know how safe is such investment with online banks vis-a-vis regular banks? As far as I know, neither money market accounts nor savings accounts have any investment risk (within reason) since both are insured by the FDIC. Note that this is not necessarily the case with money market funds. is their any downside to such investments? Yes, there are a few. I believe the two biggest ones are:", "title": "" }, { "docid": "1e5211b469edeb470c91b8271c090ca9", "text": "\"TDAmeritrade, an online stock broker, provides banking services within their brokerage accounts. The service offers all of what you are looking for. HOWEVER, this service is only available for free with their \"\"Apex\"\" qualification. Here is a tariff of their fees and services.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "c83ab56176a53cc349d933f86728f74c", "text": "\"I use Google Finance too. The only thing I have problem with is dividend info which it wouldn't automatically add to my portfolio. At the same time, I think that's a lot to ask for a free web site tool. So when dividend comes, I manually \"\"deposit\"\" the dividend payment by updating the cash amount. If the dividend comes in share form, I do a BUY at price 0 for that particular stock. If you only have 5 stocks, this additional effort is not bad at all. I also use the Hong Kong version of it so perhaps there maybe an implementation difference across country versions. Hope this helps. CF\"", "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": "8f913c481b6e6bedab9ea544c959e216", "text": "You're going to have a hard time finding a legit investment planner that is willing to do things like take short-term positions in shorts, etc for a small investor. Doing so would put them at risk of getting sued by you for mismanagement and losing their license or affiliation with industry associations.", "title": "" }, { "docid": "4e2f45c23e571baea4581cfc708711d9", "text": "\"For any accounts where you have a wish to keep track of dividends, gains and losses, etc., you will have to set up a an account to hold the separately listed securities. It looks like you already know how to do this. Here the trading accounts will help you, especially if you have Finance:Quote set up (to pull security prices from the internet). For the actively-managed accounts, you can just create each managed account and NOT fill it with the separate securities. You can record the changes in that account in summary each month/year as you prefer. So, you might set up your chart of accounts to include these assets: And this income: The actively-managed accounts will each get set up as Type \"\"Stock.\"\" You will create one fake security for each account, which will get your unrealized gains/losses on active accounts showing up in your trading accounts. The fake securities will NOT be pulling prices from the internet. Go to Tools -> Securities Editor -> Add and type in a name such as \"\"Merrill Lynch Brokerage,\"\" a symbol such as \"\"ML1,\"\" and in the \"\"Type\"\" field input something like \"\"Actively Managed.\"\" In your self-managed accounts, you will record dividends and sales as they occur, and your securities will be set to get quotes online. You can follow the general GnuCash guides for this. In your too-many-transactions actively traded accounts, maybe once a month you will gather up your statements and enter the activity in summary to tie the changes in cost basis. I would suggest making each fake \"\"share\"\" equal $1, so if you have a $505 dividend, you buy 505 \"\"shares\"\" with it. So, you might have these transactions for your brokerage account with Merrill Lynch (for example): When you have finished making your period-end summary entries for all the actively-managed accounts, double-check that the share balances of your actively-managed accounts match the cost basis amounts on your statements. Remember that each fake \"\"share\"\" is worth $1 when you enter it. Once the cost basis is tied, you can go into the price editor (Tools -> Price Editor) and enter a new \"\"price\"\" as of the period-end date for each actively-managed account. The price will be \"\"Value of Active Acct at Period-End/Cost of Active Acct at Period-End.\"\" So, if your account was worth $1908 but had a cost basis of $505 on Jan. 31, you would type \"\"1908/505\"\" in the price field and Jan. 31, 2017 in the date field. When you run your reports, you will want to choose the price source as \"\"Nearest in Time\"\" so that GnuCash grabs the correct quotes. This should make your actively-managed accounts have the correct activity in summary in your GnuCash income accounts and let them work well with the Trading Accounts feature.\"", "title": "" }, { "docid": "0f2ba65a4bd58ff331df60d536699149", "text": "First of all, you'll need a securities account. Nowadays, most large banks offer this as a standard product for all their customers, though it may require some extra paperwork. Then you need to buy shares in the ETF. This is indeed typically done through the stock market, but there are alternatives. Some banks will sell securities to you directly, but usually only those they create themselves (options and such). Some also offer ETF investment plans that allow you to buy shares for a fixed amount each month through the bank. In any case, the bank's online banking interface should support all these options. However, fees are an important consideration! With some banks, the securities account is free, others charge an annual fee. And the fees on stock market transactions and investment plans also vary considerably, so it could be worth it to consider some alternatives.", "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": "2a6f89b2420cdafce495b6683f5493a8", "text": "This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).", "title": "" }, { "docid": "a70f3bb1503144ad1c52173d8d7638ba", "text": "I can't give you a detailed answer because I'm away from the computer where I use kMyMoney, but IIRC to add investments you have to create new transactions on the 'brokerage account' linked to your investment account.", "title": "" } ]	fiqa

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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