query_id
stringlengths 32
32
| query
stringlengths 5
4.91k
| positive_passages
listlengths 1
22
| negative_passages
listlengths 9
100
| subset
stringclasses 7
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
604b99ece47285b7da800d9c3235bd70
|
How could USA defaulting on its public debt influence the stock/bond market?
|
[
{
"docid": "9c52167af80856de1ae5995c89bb1e1d",
"text": "\"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49298734e5683df12355c7dbccf30bb4",
"text": "\"The default scenario that we're talking about in the Summer of 2011 is a discretionary situation where the government refuses to borrow money over a certain level and thus becomes insolvent. That's an important distinction, because the US has the best credit in the world and still carries enormous borrowing power -- so much so that the massive increases in borrowing over the last decade of war and malaise have not affected the nation's ability to borrow additional money. From a personal finance point of view, my guess is that after the \"\"drop dead date\"\" disclosed by the Treasury, you'd have a period of chaos and increasing liquidity issues after government runs out of gimmicks like \"\"borrowing\"\" from various internal accounts and \"\"selling\"\" assets to government authorities. I don't think the markets believe that the Democrats and Republicans are really willing to destroy the country. If they are, the market doesn't like surprises.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2e9a22e7b05f2ab58c4fc193e7c67187",
"text": "Regarding the Summer of 2011 Crisis: There is NO reason that the United States cannot continue borrowing like it is just based on a particular ratio: Debt to GDP. The Debt to GDP ratio right now is around 100%, or 1:1. This means the US GDP is around $14 Trillion and its debt is also around $14 trillion. Other countries have higher debt:gdp ratios Japan - for instance - has a debt:gdp ratio of 220% Regarding a selloff of stocks, dollars and bonds: you have to realize that selling pressure on the dollar will make THE PRICE OF EVERYTHING increase. So commodities and stocks will skyrocket proportionally. The stockmarket can selloff faster than the dollar though. And both markets have circuit breakers that can attempt to curb quick selloffs. Effectiveness pending.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b8f6e63d5633a6b93d55ac418d50aa71",
"text": "Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f97d35bd94c664205c2929914af3cc9",
"text": "Stocks, gold, commodities, and physical real estate will not be affected by currency changes, regardless of whether those changes are fast or slow. All bonds except those that are indexed to inflation will be demolished by sudden, unexpected devaluation. Notice: The above is true if devaluation is the only thing going on but this will not be the case. Unfortunately, if the currency devalued rapidly it would be because something else is happening in the economy or government. How these asset values are affected by that other thing would depend on what the other thing is. In other words, you must tell us what you think will cause devaluation, then we can guess how it might affect stock, real estate, and commodity prices.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59f54cbaa67b1798e28fbcb031da4510",
"text": "\"The term \"\"stock\"\" here refers to a static number as contrasted to flows, e.g. population vs. population growth. Stock, in this context, is not at all related to an equity instrument. Yes, annual refinance costs, interest rate payments etc. are what we should be looking at when assessing debt burden. Those are flows. That was my point when cautioning against naive debt GDP comparisons. Also, keep in mind that by borrowing in it's sovereign currency, the US has an enormous amount of monetary tools to handle the debt if it ever became a problem. Greece, by comparison, is at the mercy of the ECB, so they only have fiscal levers to pull. The interest expense does not strike me as especially concerning, but I'd be happy to verify BIS or IMF reports if you would like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6828cfcacc79e64d02085f60c4e19b8",
"text": "Just playing devil's advocate: A falling stock price impairs the firm's ability to raise equity capital efficiently. In these times, additional regulatory capital requirements continue to be levied on the banks, and they are faced with raising capital inefficiently, which may impair their ability to pay their debt, which may lead to a ratings downgrade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ef53da2268a37f8563da3280b54011",
"text": "Many of the major indices retreated today because of this news. Why? How do the rising budget deficits and debt relate to the stock markets? The major reason for the market retreating is the uncertainty regarding the US Dollar. If the US credit rating drops that will have an inflationary effect on the currency (as it will push up the cost of US Treasuries and reduce confidence in the USD). If this continues the loss of USD confidence could bring an end to the USD as the world's reserve currency which could also create inflation (as world banks could reduce their USD reserves). This can make US assets appear overvalued. Why is there such a large emphasis on the S&P rating? S&P is a large trusted rating agency so the market will respond to their analysis much like how a bank would respond to any change in your rating by Transunion (Consumer Credit Bureau) Does this have any major implications for the US stock markets today, in the short term and in July? If you are a day-trader I'm sure it does. There will be minor fluctuations in the market as soon as news comes out (either of its extension or any expected delays in passing that extension). What happens when the debt ceiling is reached? Since the US is in a deficit spending situation it needs to borrow more to satisfy its existing obligations (in short it pays its debt with more debt). As a result, if the debt ceiling isn't raised then eventually the US will be unable to pay its existing obligations. We would be in a default situation which could have devastating affects on the value of the USD. How hard the hit will depend on how long the default situation lasts (the longer we go without an increased ceiling after the exhaustion point the more we default on). In reality, Congress will approve a raise, but they will drag it out to the last possible minute. They want to appear as if they are against it, but they understand the catastrophic effects of not doing so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a0966ecf561ff201a4d677734381662",
"text": "Like all many branches of the economy, they do cross over at points. Private stock value increases pushes up tax revenue which in turn contributes to easing of national debt. The level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6426db9ce08d2a187bfe55252ea18609",
"text": "I imagine that it wouldn't affect consumer debt significantly. Individuals are separate entities from their government like how stockholders are separate entities from a corporation. It would probably make it harder for the country to raise money through bonds. Who wants to purchase bonds from a country that won't pay you back?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74f16ca3b2338ee1f5d5880fedd1525f",
"text": "It just occured to me that the larger the debt the easier it is for the Fed to strangle the economy, concentrate wealth even more, and choke off government spending on things other than debt service. It is a huge problem that the US government appears to be in a permanent structural deficit that gets bigger both during expansions AND contractions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25755e8dee8392ce566dbb40838b3561",
"text": "\"So, I've read the article in question, \"\"Basically, It's Over\"\". Here's my opinion: I respect Charlie Munger but I think his parable misses the mark. If he's trying to convince the average person (or at least the average Slate-reading person) that America is overspending and headed for trouble, the parable could have been told better. I wasn't sure how to follow some of the analogies he was making, and didn't experience the clear \"\"aha\"\" I was hoping for. Nevertheless, I agree with his point of view, which I see as: In the long run, the United States is going to have serious difficulty in supporting its debt habit, energy consumption habit, and its currency. In terms of an investment strategy to protect oneself, here are some thoughts. These don't constitute a complete strategy, but are some points to consider as part of an overall strategy: If the U.S. is going to continue amassing debt fast, it would stand to reason it will become a worse credit risk, requiring it to pay higher interest rates on its debt. Long-term treasury bonds would decline as rates increase, and so wouldn't be a great place to be invested today. In order to pay the mounting debt and debt servicing costs, the U.S. will continue to run the printing presses, to inflate itself out of debt. This increase in the money supply will put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar relative to the currencies of better-run economies. U.S. cash and short-term treasuries might not be a great place to be invested today. Hedge with inflation-indexed bonds (e.g. TIPS) or the bonds of stronger major economies – but diversify; don't just pick one. If you agree that energy prices are headed higher, especially relative to U.S. dollars, then a good sector to invest a portion of one's portfolio would be world energy producing companies. (Send some of your money over to Canada, we have lots of oil and we're right next door :-) Anybody who has already been practicing broad, global diversification is already reasonably protected. Clearly, \"\"diversification\"\" across just U.S. stocks and bonds is not enough. Finally: I don't underestimate the ability of the U.S. to get out of this rut. U.S. history has impressed upon me (as a Canadian) two things in particular: it is highly capable of both innovating and of overcoming challenges. I'm keeping a small part of my portfolio invested in strong U.S. companies that are proven innovators – not of the \"\"financial\"\"-innovation variety – and with global reach.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85f6aa6282ed7e40d4e2202216c9b296",
"text": "US bond traders have begun a new trading day looking at higher prices for Treasury paper while Wall Street is set to open lower. The mood swing comes as the head of China’s central bank has summoned the spectre of a Minsky Moment. Hyman Minsky is a economist famed for his theory about the risk of a sudden collapse in asset prices triggered by excessive debt or credit growth. The recent surge in global equity and credit markets has been accompanied by a number of strategists warning of a Minsky scenario and that chorus has elevated in tone by Zhou Xiaochuan, the PBOC governor. He reportedly expressed concern that corporate and household debt are rising too quickly and said China need to defend itself from excessive optimism that could lead to a “Minsky Moment’’. Stocks in Hong Kong closed down 1.9 per cent, its biggest fall in two months, led by property companies, while havens such as US government bonds gained. The 10-year Treasury note yield has dipped to 2.31 per cent, while gold has rebounded from early losses to rise 0.4 per cent. The yen, another haven barometer has appreciated 0.4 per cent in value versus the dollar. S&P equity futures are now down 0.4 after the broad market closed at a record on Wednesday. Ian Lyngen at BMO Capital Markets notes: We’d be remiss in our assessment of the recent bid if we didn’t acknowledge that the initial downtrade in risk assets followed comments from PBOC governor Zhou citing the risk of a “Minsky Moment” for Chinese assets. This is the notion that exhausted gains in asset prices and credit growth lead to significant market collapses – also known as The Pessimists’ Delight. As today marks the 30th anniversary of the day that the Dow had its largest single-day selloff in history and Wednesday’s close above 23,000 set a new record of the index, Zhou’s comments seem very appropriately timed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "175bbab1558d54ee3fe30bbff6fa8879",
"text": "If you are actually referring to all the political rhetoric and posturing over the debt ceiling issue. That's a long ways from the US actually defaulting on paying debts. A lot of government offices might shut down, but I expect anyone holding US debt to be paid off. (they have the printing presses after all) If that's what you are referring to, based on the LAST time that the governement had to shut down because they didn't raise the debt ceiling, it won't be a big deal. Last time, no debt was defaulted on, a bunch of the less essential government offices shut down for a few days, and the stock market did a collective 'meh' over the whole thing. It was basically a non event. I've no reason to expect it will be different this time. (btw, where were all these republican budget cutters hiding when 10 years ago they started with a nearly balanced budget, and ended up blowing up the national debt by about 80% in 8 years time? (from roughly $6B to $11B) I wish they'd been screaming about the debt as much then as they are now. Not that there isn't ample blame to go around, and both sides have not been spending in ways that make a drunken sailor look like the paragon of a fiscal conservative, but to hear nearly any of them tell it, their party had nothing to do with taking us from a balanced budget to the highest burn rate ever while they were in control (with a giant financial crisis through in as pure 'bonus')",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "637f9894595549c7a740ca88ecfd5fbc",
"text": "\"Thanks for the article. A couple questions: - Is your basic investment premise that as defaults rise, investors will demand higher rates, and thus loans will become more expensive for borrowers? Why can't the lenders include a larger reserve to offset defaults (making loans less profitable for them?), or why doesn't this just wipe out the riskiest tranches of abs? Does it have to result in an implosion in supply? - \"\"Since 2009, car loans have exploded over $1.1 Trillion\"\"- wouldn't car loans increase significantly from the bottom of the Great Recession as the economy recovered? Also, the graph shows the billions of car loans. I think you'd have to look at an inflation adjusted loan origination, as cars do not cost the same today as they did 1970, so, you'd expect the total dollar value of loans to be much higher. - \"\"How many borrowers are using their cars as collateral for new debt?\"\" Are you asking how many are refinance their cars? I don't think this is a thing. Cars depreciate and most of the time, the value of the car is less than loan. People may be rolling over into a new car and loan but I don't think they are re-mortgaging their cars. I could be wrong but there has to be information available on this - \"\"We do this through purchasing long dated 1-2 year out-of-the-money PUT options on first order stocks\"\"- How do you know where the strike price on these stocks will be? If your very confident, you can sell a call above to offset the cost of the put. Or alternatively, why don't you buy a credit default swap on the abs tranches?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3dec6527bd0a515914b6241198a5034c",
"text": "\"When people (even people in the media) say: \"\"The stock market is up because of X\"\" or \"\"The stock market is down because of Y\"\", they are often engaging in what Nicolas Taleb calls the narrative falacy. They see the market has moved in one direction or another, they open their newspaper, pick a headline that provides a plausible reason for the market to move, and say: \"\"Oh, that is why the stock market is down\"\". Very rarely do statements like this actually come from research, asking people why they bought or sold that day. Sometimes they may be right, but it is usually just story telling. In terms of old fashioned logic this is called the \"\"post hoc, ergo proper hoc\"\" fallacy. Now all the points people have raised about the US deficit may be valid, and there are plenty of reasons for worrying about the future of the world economy, but they were all known before the S&P report, which didn't really provide the markets with much new information. Note also that the actual bond market didn't move much after hearing the same report, in fact the price of 10 year US Treasury bonds actually rose a tiny bit. Take these simple statements about what makes the market go up or down on any given day with several fistfuls of salt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62aa109816414a75f7b2f8d110a475d",
"text": "I don't know Australian law, but I will give my US perspective here. The custom in the US is for officers and directors to be indemnified by the corporation, and that LLCs have an even broader power to indemnify (even to remove the duty of loyalty!). Moreover, directors will typically be able to purchase D&O insurance to protect them from loss in the event of liability. For US corporations (not LLCs), the duty of care (prudence) requires that directors behave responsibly in weighing major decisions, and consult experts and specialists before coming to rash decisions. It usually becomes a court case in the context of a large public company in the midst of an acquisition event. The only people with standing (in the US) are shareholders. If all the other shareholders are directors, then it may be hard for them to blame you. Additionally, if you are concerned about the propriety of your actions, there may be sources to rely on. First, discussion with your fellow directors can be a helpful guide (though will not usually immunize you from any accusation of wrongdoing), and disclosure tends to cure almost any accusation of breaching the duty of loyalty. Second, boards often secure the advice of legal counsel, and sometimes bring on lawyers as members or will outright hire counsel for the board. Third, there may be services that will provide you with generic advice (e.g. UK Companies House and US-based IOD), which might set you at ease a little bit. I don't know the details of Australian law, as I say. But my sense of common law countries is that, like the US, they are primarily concerned about negligence (incompetently or imprudently neglecting to understand the business and make informed decisions), disloyalty (fraudulently engaging in self-interested transactions that either hurt the company or should have been offered to the company), and recklessness (not bothering to seek out information). As long as you are active, informed, engaged, and not engaging in secret deals outside the company (especially deals where either side is competing with the company), then that would be more than sufficient under the US standard. If you are concerned about liability, then inquire into indemnifications by the company (in the US, the company can usually pay all legal costs of directors), insurance, and legal counsel. I imagine your business partners are no more savvy than you are. My impression is you are overreacting to relatively rare and exotic expression of corporate law (at least in the US). But I'll close by repeating that I don't know Australian corporate law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "764f0915779b6649c2953dc26dd52d87",
"text": "No. Busts are very infrequent, and if an equity were illiquid enough to be affected, the bust cost would be enormous. For a liquid equity, the amount of busted volume is insignificant except during a flash crash or flash spike. Then it would be reasonable to redownload.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
925d2e9f0ba3ae542ba2273ea1d34040
|
What is the best way to make a bet that a certain stock will go up in the medium term?
|
[
{
"docid": "d3de9e9bca0a07a1d3001ebb0cf33d1a",
"text": "Specific stock advice isn't permitted on these boards. I'm discussing the process of a call spread with the Apple Jan 13 calls as an example. In effect, you have $10 to 'bet.' Each bet you'd construct offers a different return (odds). For example, If you bought the $750 call at $37.25, you'd need to look to find what strike has a bid of $27 or higher. The $790 is bid $27.75. So this particular spread is a 4 to 1 bet the stock will close in January over $790, with a $760 break even. You can pull the number from Yahoo to a spreadsheet to make your own chart of spread costs, but I'll give one more example. You think it will go over $850, and that strike is now ask $18.85. The highest strike currently listed is $930, and it's bid $10.35. So this spread cost is $850, and a close over $930 returns $8000 or over 9 to 1. Again, this is not advice, just an analysis of how spreads work. Note, any anomalies in the pricing above is the effect of a particular strike having no trades today, not every strike is active so 'last trade' can be days old. Note: My answer adds to AlexR's response in that once you used the word bet and showed a desire to make a risky move, options are the answer. You acknowledged you understand the basic concept, but given the contract size of 100 shares, these suggestions are ways to bet under your $1000 limit and profit from the gain in the underlying stock you hope to see.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e276c660232996a2c7ca6794e960005",
"text": "You could try to refine your options strategy: For instance you could buy the USD 750 call option(s) you mentioned and at the same time sell (short) call options with a higher strike price, which is above the share price level you expect that Apple will trade at in one year (for instance USD 1,100). By doing this, you would receive the premium of the call option(s) with the higher option, which in turn would help you finance buying your USD 750 call(s). The net effect of this trading strategy would be that you would give up the extra profit you would earn if Apple would rose above USD 1,100 (the strike price of the call option sold short). Your total risk would be even less than with your actual strategy (in my view).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "156ea79111ede80e9923c3ebe543a75e",
"text": "I think that those options might well be your best bet, given the potential 700% return in one year if you're right. You could look and see if any Synthetic Zeros (a Synthetic Zero is a derivative that will pay out a set amount if the underlying security is over a certain price point) exist for the share but chances are if they do they wouldn't offer the 700% return. Also might be worth asking the question at the quant stack exchange to see if they have any other ideas.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "705edc8917c352edfecb5356b6058ef2",
"text": "I'm not entirely sure about some of the details in your question, since I think you meant to use $10,000 as the value of the futures contract and $3 as the value of the underlying stock. Those numbers would make more sense. That being said, I can give you a simple example of how to calculate the profit and loss from a leveraged futures contract. For the sake of simplicity, I'll use a well-known futures contract: the E-mini S&P500 contract. Each E-mini is worth $50 times the value of the S&P 500 index and has a tick size of 0.25, so the minimum price change is 0.25 * $50 = $12.50. Here's an example. Say the current value of the S&P500 is 1,600; the value of each contract is therefore $50 * 1,600 = $80,000. You purchase one contract on margin, with an initial margin requirement1 of 5%, or $4,000. If the S&P 500 index rises to 1,610, the value of your futures contract increases to $50 * 1,610 = $80,500. Once you return the 80,000 - 4,000 = $76,000 that you borrowed as leverage, your profit is 80,500 - 76,000 = $4,500. Since you used $4,000 of your own funds as an initial margin, your profit, excluding commissions is 4,500 - 4,000 = $500, which is a 500/4000 = 12.5% return. If the index dropped to 1,580, the value of your futures contract decreases to $50 * 1,580 = $79,000. After you return the $76,000 in leverage, you're left with $3,000, or a net loss of (3,000 - 4000)/(4000) = -25%. The math illustrates why using leverage increases your risk, but also increases your potential for return. Consider the first scenario, in which the index increases to 1,610. If you had forgone using margin and spent $80,000 of your own funds, your profit would be (80,500 - 80,000) / 80000 = .625%. This is smaller than your leveraged profit by a factor of 20, the inverse of the margin requirement (.625% / .05 = 12.5%). In this case, the use of leverage dramatically increased your rate of return. However, in the case of a decrease, you spent $80,000, but gained $79,000, for a loss of only 1.25%. This is 20 times smaller in magnitude than your negative return when using leverage. By forgoing leverage, you've decreased your opportunity for upside, but also decreased your downside risk. 1) For futures contracts, the margin requirements are set by the exchange, which is CME group, in the case of the E-mini. The 5% in my example is higher than the actual margin requirement, which is currently $3,850 USD per contract, but it keeps the numbers simple. Also note that CME group refers to the initial margin as the performance bond instead.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09e1175420f8c078193d1f53c0e2d9ca",
"text": "\"As ChrisInEdmonton describes, shorting has an asymmetric risk/reward ratio. And put options have a time cost, if you think the market is overvalued and buy lots of puts, but they expire before the market finally corrects, you can lose your entire investment. Betting on market timing of any kind is extremely difficult to do, some would argue it's impossible. \"\"The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent\"\" is a favorite wall street trader saying. Instead of playing a game that's difficult to win, the better option is to play one you can win. That's to learn how to value individual investments well and accumulate cash until you can find investments that are under-valued to invest in. The best way to learn to value investments is to read Graham and Buffett. \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" is a good starting point, and you can read all of Buffett's investor letters for the last 30 years + for free on the Berkshire Hathaway web site. Finally the textbook on valuing stocks and other investments is \"\"Securities Analysis\"\" the 6th edition is only version to get, it was updated with Buffett and other leading value investors oversight. A basic overview of valuing investments is that every investment has an \"\"intrinsic value\"\" consisting of it's future cash flows, discounted for the time it takes to receive them. The skill is being able to estimate how likely those cash flows are to happen. a) Is it a good business? Does it have a moat, i.e. barriers that make it hard for competitors to duplicate it? b) Will management invest or distribute those cash flows wisely? Then your strategy is to not even worry about the market, spend your time looking at individual stocks and investments and wait until some come along that's well undervalued. That may be during a market correction, or it may be tomorrow. And it's not just good enough to intelligently value your investments, you also have to have psychological fortitude to not panic and to think for yourself. Buffett describes it best. Ben Graham, my friend and teacher, long ago described the mental attitude toward market fluctuations that I believe to be most conducive to investment success. He said that you should imagine market quotations as coming from a remarkably accommodating fellow named Mr. Market who is your partner in a private business. Without fail, Mr. Market appears daily and names a price at which he will either buy your interest or sell you his. Even though the business that the two of you own may have economic characteristics that are stable, Mr. Market’s quotations will be anything but. For, sad to say, the poor fellow has incurable emotional problems. At times he feels euphoric and can see only the favorable factors affecting the business. When in that mood, he names a very high buy-sell price because he fears that you will snap up his interest and rob him of imminent gains. At other times he is depressed and can see nothing but trouble ahead for both the business and the world. On these occasions he will name a very low price, since he is terrified that you will unload your interest on him. Mr. Market has another endearing characteristic: He doesn’t mind being ignored. If his quotation is uninteresting to you today, he will be back with a new one tomorrow. Transactions are strictly at your option. Under these conditions, the more manic-depressive his behavior, the better for you. But, like Cinderella at the ball, you must heed one warning or everything will turn into pumpkins and mice: Mr. Market is there to serve you, not to guide you. It is his pocketbook, not his wisdom, that you will find useful. If he shows up some day in a particularly foolish mood, you are free to ignore him or to take advantage of him, but it will be disastrous if you fall under his influence. Indeed, if you aren’t certain that you understand and can value your business far better than Mr. Market, you don’t belong in the game. Lastly learning to value investments isn't just useful in the stock market, they are applicable to investing in any investment such as bonds, real estate, and even buying your home or running a business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0066da15e23a8a5e920016f6540b79c7",
"text": "My thoughts from the top: 1. If you're already long, which not just buy-write? if you want to sit on the portfolio for some time with little rebalancing collecting some option premiums might not be bad? 2. You can replicate this portfolio on a rolling basis through bull spreads, which should hedge (or at least reduce) your theta and give you some of that sweet sweet convexity, however you will need a large enough size to cover your transaction costs. 3. I agree with maximizing mean / lower semi var (most kids max mean/var)) so good move there. However you need estimates of expected return (not easy!) and semi var (easier). Look into using GARCH (or a form of it) on the semi var for a better estimator. 4. Is this an MSR portfolio? How do you determine your weights? 5. In terms of sizing/leverage, Remember the betting condition that equity needs to be positive for all time. How are you planning to limit your max DD? and how often do you plan on rebalancing/rebetting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da3ed09c146ab37ff05f628df76df15",
"text": "Can you give more detail on the problem? If you can model it with a one step binomial tree, then the price is favourable as long as the chance to multiply is P(S^1 = 10 S^0 ) > 0.1. If you don't know the probabilities, then the usual go-to is to determine what probability space is that would lead to an expected profit (plus an error, and a cushion for risk aversion if the bet is sufficiently large).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5965bd7a680970693cf6bcc12c3f4698",
"text": "If you are worried about elections think about writing some calls against your long positions to help hedge. If you have MSFT (@ $51.38 right now) you could write a MSFT Call for lets say $55. You can bank $170 per 100 shares (let's say you write it at 1.70) (MSFT 01/20/2017 55.00 C 1.73 +0.01 Bid: 1.69 Ask: 1.77) If MSFT goes down a lot you will have lost $170 less per 100 shares than you would have because you wrote an option for $170. You will in fact be break even if the stock falls to 49.68 on the Jan Strike Date. If MSFT goes up $3.50 you will have made $170 and still have your MSFT stock for a net gain of $520. $170 in cash for the premium and your stock is now worth $350 more. If MSFT goes up $3.62 or more you will have made the max $530ish and have no MSFT left potentially losing additional profit if the stock goes up like gang busters. So is it worth it for you to get $170 in cash now and risk the stock going up more than $5 between now and Jan. That is the decision to make here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fec6683380e14b8eb39ce4db93a54db",
"text": "A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cde1f27c0432fe1c2c56d9cb5231181",
"text": "If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d35cff4fb7363e321d88241932eab2a0",
"text": "\"If I really understood it, you bet that a quote/currency/stock market/anything will rise or fall within a period of time. So, what is the relationship with trading ? I see no trading at all since I don't buy or sell quotes. You are not betting as in \"\"betting on the outcome of an horse race\"\" where the money of the participants is redistributed to the winners of the bet. You are betting on the price movement of a security. To do that you have to buy/sell the option that will give you the profit or the loss. In your case, you would be buying or selling an option, which is a financial contract. That's trading. Then, since anyone should have the same technic (call when a currency rises and put when it falls)[...] How can you know what will be the future rate of exchange of currencies? It's not because the price went up for the last minutes/hours/days/months/years that it will continue like that. Because of that everyone won't have the same strategy. Also, not everyone is using currencies to speculate, there are firms with real needs that affect the market too, like importers and exporters, they will use financial products to protect themselves from Forex rates, not to make profits from them. [...] how the brokers (websites) can make money ? The broker (or bank) will either: I'm really afraid to bet because I think that they can bankrupt at any time! Are my fears correct ? There is always a probability that a company can go bankrupt. But that's can be very low probability. Brokers are usually not taking risks and are just being intermediaries in financial transactions (but sometime their computer systems have troubles.....), thanks to that, they are not likely to go bankrupt you after you buy your option. Also, they are regulated to insure that they are solid. Last thing, if you fear losing money, don't trade. If you do trade, only play with money you can afford to lose as you are likely to lose some (maybe all) money in the process.\"",
"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": "c82a14fca33c9b00f82005e06eac1fdc",
"text": "The strategy looks good on paper but in reality, the 150 call will have some time value particularly if it has got some time to mature. Let us say this time value is 0.50 , so the call costs 3.50. If the stock stays above 150 (actually above 149.50) , by the expiration of the call, you will lose this 0.50 . Then you need to keep buying calls over and over and hope one day a big down move will more than make up for all this lost premium. It is possible, but not entirely predictable. You may get lucky, but it may take many months to produce a significant move to make up for all the lost premium. If a big down move were to happen and the market had any indication of that in advance, that would be priced into the call already, so the 150 call may cost 4$ or 4.50$ if the market had wind of a big move. (a.k.a high implied volatility)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05df34a65fa32fa9dd56f84f73990c16",
"text": "\"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "057082b5885da5dc1df7c391596501ef",
"text": "I have been looking into CMEs trading tool. I might just play around with futures on it. You make a good point on that though. I am reading Hull's book on options, futures and derivatives, and so far so good. Only thing I would want to test is options on futures, which is missing :( .",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bd438a6f4f107d2889bb2052ca1a935",
"text": "As an easy way to answer... look at an index, let's say the S&P 500. Look at the price this last October, and predict where it will move in November... easy right? It already happened, and you have the benefit of hindsight. The move looks like such a consistent, obvious continuation of the previous up and down pattern. It looks predictable, like you could have guessed that. Now, look at today's price, and predict where it will go next month. Not so easy now? The problem is, every point you're at, all the time, looks like a possible inflection point or turning point. If you're following an uptrend, you may think it'll continue, but you may also think that it zigged so far up already, that now it's ready for a zag down where you'll buy. So you wait... and it keeps rising, and you kick yourself for missing out. Next time, you see another uptrend and resolve to buy it regardless, thinking now it'll keep going, but it turns down the second you buy it, and keeps dropping. You kick yourself again. The market is amazing at doing this to you every time. In real time, every wiggle in the price looks simultaneously like a trend that could continue, and like a trend that has moved far enough and is ready to reverse. And more likely you'll guess the wrong one. The ONLY way with some little hope of succeeding is to study study study, and find and learn trading rules with just over 50/50 chances (like buying when a moving average is touched within an uptrend as an example, and setting a stop loss at -1%, and a sell limit at +2% or something), and then never ever deviate from that strategy, because your only hope is in the consistency of statistics and odds over time. You'll get many -1% losses, and hopefully enough 2% gains to compensate the losses, plus some profit. OR, to make it easier, just buy in on a dip, and hold and hold and collect dividends, and be content to match the market without effort.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e6b3ccc88372faf54375ebaed55528a",
"text": "A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited. The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc. 2 additional points - the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing. The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "064495cf3332a8aabc1d6f1343e99bd0",
"text": "Paying down your mortgage now will decrease the total cost of your home loan and the time period for which your loan lasts. Even if you trade up in that time period, you will be that much closer to being free of house payments. Owning your home outright gives you a significant amount of freedom to consider less lucrative and more personally fulfilling career options- especially if your work environment becomes unpleasant. It can also help you weather the storm of a job loss more easily (though you should also build an emergency fund). Homes are depreciating, illiquid assets with significant transaction fees. It is wise to get a starter home that meets your current needs and move up to a home that better meets your needs as you mature. However, getting on the status treadmill and buying large showy homes that generally exceed the utility that you get out of them is expensive, a poor investment, and often impairs the ability to generate long term wealth.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
946942f1f35b29056fe676af9ad4ec16
|
Do I pay a zero % loan before another to clear both loans faster?
|
[
{
"docid": "2ae58a5ff9a42bcaf480458f040d5444",
"text": "By paying the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan you will save $23.30 in interest every month. By paying the $11,000 into the 3.625% loan you will save $33.20 in interest every month. If your objective is to get rid of one loan quicker so repayments can go to the other loan to pay off sooner, I would put the $11,000 into the 2.54% loan and pay that off as quick as possible, then put any extra payments into the mortgage at 3.625%. Pay only the minimum amounts into the 0% car loan as this is not costing you anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0bec7fa1c624717e5bb5a1ec9fa43ea3",
"text": "See many past answers: you will usually save the most money by paying off the highest-intetest-rate loan first. (Remember to allow for tax effects, if any, when comparing real interest rates.) Some folks are more motivated to simplify their finances than to save money; in that case you might pay off the smallest loan first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9dce05a7255e9cf5cd86ec82fce3395",
"text": "This is more of an interesting question then it looks on first sight. In the USA there are some tax reliefs for mortgage payments, which we don’t have in the UK unless you are renting out the property with the mortgage. So firstly work out the interest rate on each loan taking into account any tax reliefs, etc. Then you need to consider the charges for paying off a loan, for example often there is a charge if you pay off a mortgage. These days in the UK, most mortgagees allow you to pay off at least 10% a year without hitting such a charge – but check your mortgage offer document. How interest is calculated when you make an early payment may be different between your loans – so check. Then you need to consider what will happen if you need another loan. Some mortgages allow you to take back any overpayments, most don’t. Re-mortgaging to increase the size of your mortgage often has high charges. Then there is the effect on your credit rating: paying more of a loan each month then you need to, often improves your credit rating. You also need to consider how interest rates may change, for example if you mortgage is a fixed rate but your car loan is not and you expect interest rates to rise, do the calculations based on what you expect interest rates to be over the length of the loans. However, normally it is best to pay off the loan with the highest interest rate first. Reasons for penalties for paying of some loans in the UK. In the UK some short term loans (normally under 3 years) add on all the interest at the start of the loan, so you don’t save any interest if you pay of the loan quicker. This is due to the banks having to cover their admin costs, and there being no admin charge to take out the loan. Fixed rate loans/mortgagees have penalties for overpayment, as otherwise when interest rates go down, people will change to other lenders, so making it a “one way bet” that the banks will always loose. (I believe in the USA, the central bank will under right such loans, so the banks don’t take the risk.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a114c5d7d6bb11e7b8bd57b1e4ac961",
"text": "\"This is a very complicated thing to try to do. There are many variables, and some will come down to personal taste and buying habits. First you need to look at each of the loans and find out two very important things. Some times you pay a huge penalty for paying off a loan early. Usually this is on larger loans (like your mortgage) but it's not on heard of in car loans. If there is a penalty for early re-payment, then just pay off on the schedule, or at least take that penalty into consideration. Another dirty trick that some banks do is force you to pay \"\"the interest first\"\" when making a early payment. Essentially this is a penalty that ensures you pay the \"\"full price\"\" of the loan and not a lessor amount because you borrowed for less time. The way it really works is complicated, but it's not usually to your benefit to pay these off early either. These usually show up on smaller loans, but better look for it anyway. Next up on the list you need to look at your long term goals and buying habits. When are you going to re-model your kitchen. You can get another loan on the equity of the house, it's much harder to get a loan on the equity of a car (even once the car is paid off). So, depending on your goals you may do better to pay extra into your mortgage, then paying off your other loans early. Also consider your credit score. A big part of it is amount of money remaining on credit lines/total credit lines. Paying of a loan will reduce your credit score (short term). It will also give you the ability to take out another loan (long term). Finally, consider simplification of debtors. If something goes wrong it's much easier to work with a single debtor, then three separate debtors. This could mean moving your car loans into your mortgage, even if it's at a higher interest rate, should the need arise. Should you need to do that you will need the equity in your home. Bonus Points: As others have stated, there are tax breaks for people with mortgages in some circumstances. You should consider those as well. Car loans usually require a different level of insurance. Make sure to count that as well. Taking these points into consideration, I would suggest, paying off the 2.54% car loan first, then putting the extra $419.61 into your mortgage to build up more equity, and leaving the 0% loan to run it's full course. You all ready \"\"paid for\"\" that loan, so might as well use it. Side note: If you can find a savings account or other investment platform with a decent enough interest rate, you would be better served putting the $419.61 there. A decent rate ROTH-IRA would work very nicely for this, as you would get tax deferment on that as well. Sadly it may be hard to find an account with a high enough interest rate to make it a more attractive option the paying off the mortgage early.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d39986d50b0e63031806e14e0e0c04a4",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96fe0df00f3d0f26a6004e7788cd1852",
"text": "Your goal of wanting to eliminate your debts early is great. Generally, you can save more money by paying off loans with higher interest rates first. However, it sounds like you are excited about the idea of eliminating one of your car loans in two months. There is nothing wrong with that; it is good to be excited about eliminating debt. I like your plan. Pay off the $14.6k loan first, then apply the $635 monthly payment to the $19.4k loan. You'll have that loan paid off almost 3 years early. Perhaps you'll find some additional money to apply to it and get rid of it even earlier. After you've eliminated both car loans, save up that $1000/month for your next car. That will allow you to pay cash for it, which will allow you to negotiate the best price and save interest. 0% loans are not free money. Other answers will tell you to wait as long as possible to pay off your 0% loan, but I think there can be good reasons to eliminate smaller loans first, regardless of interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9772ce3b39dea82f5f7821f4cbe8efd",
"text": "This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%. So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue. I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work. So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month. If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year. If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e427d93f97ba1a92e5ccb7c212794712",
"text": "\"Allen, welcome to Money.SE. You've stumbled into the issue of Debt Snowball, which is the \"\"low balance\"\" method of paying off debt. The other being \"\"high interest.\"\" I absolutely agree that when one has a pile of cards, say a dozen, there is a psychological benefit to paying off the low balances and knocking off card after card. I am not dismissive of that motivation. Personal Finance has that first word, personal, and one size rarely fits all. For those who are numbers-oriented, it's worth doing the math, a simple spreadsheet showing the cost of the DS vs paying by rate. If that cost is even a couple hundred dollars, I'll still concede that one less payment, envelope, stamp, etc, favors the DS method. On the other hand, there's the debt so large that the best payoff is 2 or 3 years away. During that time, $10000 paid toward the 24% card is saving you $2400/yr vs the $500 if paid toward 5% debt. Hard core DSers don't even want to discuss the numbers, strangely enough. In your case, you don't have a pile of anything. The mortgage isn't even up for discussion. You have just 2 car loans. Send the $11,000 to the $19K loan carrying the 2.5%. This will save you $500 over the next 2 years vs paying the zero loan down. Once you've done that, the remaining $8000 will become your lowest balance, and you should flip to the Debt Snowball method, which will keep you paying that debt off. DS is a tool that should be pulled out for the masses, the radio audience that The David (Dave Ramsey, radio show host) appeals to. They may comprise the majority of those with high credit card debt, and have greatest success using this method. But, you exhibit none of their symptoms, and are best served by the math. By bringing up the topic here, you've found yourself in the same situation as the guy who happens to order a white wine at a wedding, and finds his Mormon cousin offering to take him to an AA meeting the next day. In past articles on this decision, I've referenced a spreadsheet one can download. It offers an easy way to see your choice without writing your own excel doc. For the situation described here, the low balance total interest is $546 vs $192 for the higher interest. Not quite the $500 difference I estimated. The $350 difference is low due to the small rate difference and relatively short payoffs. In my opinion, knowledge is power, and you can decide either way. What's important is that if you pay off the zero interest first, you can say \"\"I knew it was a $350 difference, but I'd rather have just one outstanding loan for the remain time.\"\" My issue with DS is when it's preached like a religion, and followers are told to not even run the numbers. I wrote an article, Thinking about Dave Ramsey a number of years back, but the topic never gets old.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "65f8af4a4f42bc4a9e99a59ac89a5072",
"text": "Use the $11k to pay down either car loan (your choice). You should be able to clear one loan very quickly after that lump sum. After that, continue to aggressively pay down the other car loan until it is clear. Lastly, pay off the mortgage while making sure you are financially stable in other areas (cash-on-hand, retirement, etc) Reasoning: The car loans are very close in value, making it a wash as far as payoff speed. The 2.54% interest is not a large factor here. As a percentage of all these numbers, the few bucks a month isn't going to change your financial situation. This is assuming you will pay off both loans well ahead of schedule, making the interest rate negligible in the answer. Paying off the mortgage last is due to the risk associated with the car loans. The cars are guaranteed to lose value at an alarming rate. While a house certainly may lose value, it is far from an expectation. It is likely that your house will maintain and/or increase in value, unless you have specific circumstances not disclosed here. This makes the mortgage a lower risk loan in your financial world. You can probably sell the house to clear the loan balance if necessary. The cars are far more likely to depreciate beyond the loan balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d810d2b0597dfe42dca0e0ea09f600cb",
"text": "\"Aside from the calculations of \"\"how much you save through reducing interest\"\", you have two different types of loan here. The house that is mortgaged is not a wasting asset. You can reasonably expect that in 2045 it will have retained its worth measured in \"\"houses\"\", against the other houses in the same neighbourhood. In money terms, it is likely to be worth more than its current value, if only because of inflation. To judge the real cost or benefit of the mortgage, you need to consider those factors. You didn't say whether the 3.625% is a fixed or variable rate, but you also need to consider how the rate might compare with inflation in the long term. If you have a fixed rate mortgage and inflation rises above 3.625% in future, you are making money from the loan in the long term, not losing what you pay in interest. On the other hand, your car is a wasting asset, and your car loans are just a way of \"\"paying by installments\"\" over the life of the car. If there are no penalties for early repayment, the obvious choice there is to pay off the highest interest rates first. You might also want to consider what happens if you need to \"\"get the $11,000 back\"\" to use for some other (unplanned, or emergency) purpose. If you pay it into your mortgage now, there is no easy way to get it back before 2045. On the other hand, if you pay down your car loans, most likely you now have a car that is worth more than the loans on it. In an emergency, you could sell the car and recover at least some of the $11,000. Of course you should keep enough cash available to cover \"\"normal emergencies\"\" without having to take this sort of action, but \"\"abnormal emergencies\"\" do sometimes happen!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6787c5a4ece0bd9aca6d411366063770",
"text": "While, from a money-saving standpoint, the obviously-right course of action is to make only the minimum payment on the 0% loan, there are potentially legal reasons to try to pay off a car loan early. With a mortgage, you are the legal owner of the property and any action by the lender beyond imposing fees (e.g. foreclosure) requires going through the proper legal channels. On the other hand, in most jurisdictions, you are not the legal owner of a car purchased on a loan, and a missed or even lost payment can result in repossession without the lender even having to go to court. So from a risk-aversion standpoint, there's something to be said for getting rid of car loans as soon as you can.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe242e61ddef31e5d703de79fde2b92e",
"text": "At the moment, you are paying about $1,300 interest each month (£431k @ 3.625% / 12) on your mortgage and repaying capital at about $1,500 per month. Paying $11,000 off your mortgage would save you about $9,000 as it is reduces your balance by about seven monthly capital repayments: but you will only see this benefit at the end of the mortgage because you will pay it off seven months earlier. There is only about $1,000 interest remaining on your car loans. Paying the $11,000 off your interest free loan then paying extra agianst the interest bearing loan brings that down to $500 and paying it off your interest bearing loan brings it down to $200. Either way, both car loans would be finished by early 2018. In summary, if you use the $11,000 against your car loans, you will save $8,500-$8,800 less than paying it off the mortage, but you will have no car loans in one year rather than three. Google spreadsheet for calculations here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a937d43bad2970d9c92c71d7663f13d0",
"text": "Keep in mind that by fully paying off one of your loans, you will reduce your minimum repayments. This will make you feel richer than you actually are. This will make you buy stuff that it seems like you can afford, probably putting some of it on credit. As you can't actually afford this, this will leave you, in a years time, with the same amount of debt you have now or more, but with a slightly bigger tv. Assuming your home loan has no penalties for paying off extra, then put all 11k into there to keep your monthly repayments as high as possible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d7544917064aef410b1a42312600f993",
"text": "If you want to pay them off as quickly as possible, pay the minimum payment on the larger two and dump as much as you can into the one with the 8.75% interest. Then, even though it has a slightly lower interest rate, I would attack the one with the next smallest balance after that, while continuing to make the minimum payment on the one with the largest balance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11aad3f1d262f1dfeb3eb0ce32de0665",
"text": "I think everyone else answered before you added the info about your car loan in your comment. While it makes sense to pay off loans with the highest interest rate first, keep in mind that in most cases you can deduct mortgage interest from your taxable income. So the after-tax rate of interest that you're paying on your 8.6% second mortgage will be less than your 7% car loan, assuming that your tax bracket is more than 18% (federal and state combined). If you plan to use your funds to pay down debt, definitely attack the car loan first.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79e105694a0a1cf5b65b66b9141c856d",
"text": "In my opinion, it generally makes sense to focus all of your debt-reduction energy and funds on one loan at a time. There are two reasons for this: It will allow you to more quickly move from 4 loans to 3 loans, and then 2, and then 1, providing you with a sense of progress and motivation. As you reduce the number of loans that you have, your monthly minimum payment obligations will be reduced. Then, if you have a month with an emergency expense, you will have more income available to you for your emergency without getting behind on your loans. There is debate about whether to pay loans in order of the loan balance or in order of interest rate (you can read about this here and here), but in your case, your highest interest loans also have the lowest balance, so either method would have you picking the same loans first. You have already chosen, wisely, to start with the $1500, 6.8% loans. Send all of your $1000 to one of these loans, and continue to work aggressively to knock out all four as quickly as possible.",
"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": "0cbb4b9fe4c9e25d6a9660e04a206bba",
"text": "I would just create a single liability account to represent the loan, starting with a $0 balance. Then, create a transaction in which the amount of the loan moves from the liability account into your savings account. As you pay the loan off, you'll create new transactions that move money from whichever account you're using to pay it off into your liability account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5841080e5f9aba6ff7e24e94ad1e718b",
"text": "\"This sounds like an accounting nightmare to be 100% precise. With each payment you're going to have to track: If you can account for those, then the fair thing to do is for one person to stop paying after they have paid the amount of principal they had at the beginning of the process, or possibly after they have paid an amount equivalent to the total principal and accrued interest they would have paid if they paid their loans individually. The problem is, one of you is likely going to pay more interest than you would have under the individual plan. In the example you gave, if your brother pays off any of your loans, he is going to be paying more in interest than if he paid on his 5% loans. If you pay the highest rate loans first, whoever has the lower total balance is going to pay more interest since they'll be paying on the higher rates until they've paid their \"\"fair share\"\". I don't see a clean way for you to divvy up the interest savings appropriately unless you trueup at the very end of the process. Math aside, these types of agreements can be dangerous to relationships. What if one of you decides that they don't want to participate anymore? What if one of you gets all of their loans paid off much earlier - they get the joy of being debt free while the other still has all of the debt left? What if they then don't feel obligates to pay the other's remaining debt? Are you both equally committed to cutting lifestyle in order to attack these debts? In my opinion, the complexity and risk to the relationship don't justify the interest savings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "05c8eb9f70758bd1922181c722e1f81c",
"text": "Strictly from a fastest payback standpoint, the rule is to make all minimum payments and send any extra funds to the highest interest loan next. This will result in the lowest interest paid each year. The decision to consolidate depends on the impact it will have to both your payment and overall payoff schedule. It sounds like your priority might need to be cash flow and not overall savings. e.g. taking a 4% loan that has a high payment, but stretching it over more time can lower the payment, even at a bit higher rate. You just need to be aware of the cost and decide based on what you can live with. I hope you are in a good field that would see improvements to your income over these next few years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "982b0e6b01ce7b090e517328f0d42af6",
"text": "\"With the scenario that you laid out (ie. 5% and 10% loans), it makes no sense at all. The problem is, when you're in trouble the rates are never 5% or 10%. Getting behind on credit cards sucks and is really hard to recover from. The problem with multiple accounts is that as the banks tack on fees and raise your interest rate to the default rate (usually 30%) when you give them any excuse (late payment, over the limit, etc). The banks will also cut your credit lines as you make payments, making it more likely that you will bump over the limit and be back in \"\"default\"\" status. One payment, even at a slightly higher rate is preferable when you're deep in the hole because you can actually pay enough to hit principal. If you have assets like a house, you'll get a much better rate as well. In a scenario where you're paying 22-25% interest, your minimum payment will be $150-200 a month, and that is mostly interest and penalty. \"\"One big loan\"\" will usually result in a smaller payment, and you don't end up in a situation where the banks are jockeying for position so they get paid first. The danger of consolidation is that you'll stop triggering defaults and keep making your payments, so your credit score will improve. Then the vultures will start circling and offering you more credit cards. EDIT: Mea Culpa. I wrote this based on experiences of close friends whom I've helped out over the years, not realizing how the law changed in 2009. Back around 2004, a single late payment would trigger universal default on most cards, jacking all rates up to 30% and slashing credit lines, resulting in over the limit and other fees. Credit card banks generally apply payments (in order, to interest on penalties, penalties, interest on principal, principal) in a way that makes it very difficult to pay down principal for people deep in debt. They would also offer \"\"payment plans\"\" to entice you to pay Bank B vs. Bank A, which would trigger overlimit fees from Bank A. Another change is that minimum payments were generally 2% of statement balance, which often didn't cover the monthly finance charge. The new law changed that, resulting in a payment of 1% of balance + accrued interest. Under the old regime, consolidation made it less likely that various circumstances would trigger default, and gave the struggling debtor one throat to choke. With the new rules, there are definitely a smaller number of scenarios where consolidation actually makes sense.\"",
"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": "2709f354fcd1ff6a1eb9b1c54e51016e",
"text": "\"If you take a loan, you make a contract with your lender, let's call them \"\"bank\"\" (even if it might not be a real bank). This loan contract contains an agreed-upon way of paying back the loan. Both sides agreed upon these conditions. Any change of it (like paying back early) needs the consent of both sides. So, in general, no, you cannot just pay back everything earlier unless the other side accepts this change of the contract. Consider it from the bank's point of view: They want to earn money by getting the interest you have to pay when you pay back everything nice and slowly. It is their business. They plan on these expected revenues etc. So if, for whatever reason, you have to pay back the whole remaining loan at once, you create a revenue loss for the bank and are liable for this financial damage. In German the term for this is \"\"Vorfälligkeitsentschädigung\"\" which translates to \"\"prepayment penalty\"\" or \"\"acceleration fee\"\". You just have to pay it, so in the end you come out like if you were paying back the loan in the agreed-upon fashion. However, many loan contracts contain the option to pay back early at specific points in time in specific amounts and under specific conditions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4d9b4643ff543beead589bc07cf7501",
"text": "\"I think so. I am doing this with our furniture. It doesn't cost me any more money to pay right now than it will to pay over the course of 3 years, and I can earn interest on the money I didn't spend. But know this: they aren't offering 0%, they are deferring interest for 3 years. If you pay it off before then great, if you don't you will owe all the accumulated interest. The key with these is that you always pay it, and on time. Miss a payment and you get hosed. If you don't pay on time you will owe the interest that is being deferred. They will also be financing this through a third party (like a major bank) and that company is now \"\"doing business with you\"\" which means in the US they can call you and solicit new services. I am willing to deal with those trade offs though, plus, as you say, you can always pay it off. WHY THEY DO IT (what is in it for them...) A friend of mine works for a major bank that often finances these deals here is how they work. Basically, banks do this to generate leads for their divisions that do cold calls. If you are a high credit, high income customer you go to a classic bank and request cash, if you are building credit or have bad credit, you go to a \"\"financial services\"\" branch. If you tend to finance things like cars and furniture, you get more cold calls.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f8f990af90faba58a954153cb31db3a",
"text": "\"There are some loan types where your minimum payment may be less than the interest due in the current period; this is not true of credit cards in the US. Separately, if you have a minimum payment amount due of less than the interest due in the period, the net interest amount would just become principal anyway so differentiating it isn't meaningful. With credit cards in the US, the general minimum calculation is 1% of the principal outstanding plus all interest accrued in the period plus any fees. Any overpayment is applied to the principal outstanding, because this is a revolving line of credit and unpaid interest or fees appear as a charge just like your coffee and also begin to accrue interest. The issue arises if you have multiple interest rates. Maybe you did a balance transfer at a discounted interest rate; does that balance get credited before the balance carried at the standard rate? You'll have to call your lender. While there is a regulation in place requiring payment to credit the highest rate balance first the banks still have latitude on how the payment is literally applied; explained below. When there IS an amortization schedule, the issue is not \"\"principal or interest\"\" the issue is principle, or the next payment on the amortization schedule. If the monthly payment on your car loan is $200, but you send $250, the bank will use the additional $50 to credit the next payment due. When you get your statement next month (it's usually monthly) it will indicate an amount due of $150. When you've prepaid more than an entire payment, the next payment is just farther in to the future. You need to talk to your lender about \"\"unscheduled\"\" principal payments because the process will vary by lender and by specific loan. Call your lender. You are a customer, you have a contract, they will explain this stuff to you. There is no harm that can possibly come from learning the nuances of your agreement with them. Regarding the nuance to the payment regulation: A federal credit card reform law enacted in May 2009 requires that credit card companies must apply your entire payment, minus the required minimum payment amount, to the highest interest rate balance on your card. Some credit card issuers are aggressive here and apply the non-interest portion of the minimum payment to the lowest interest rate first. You'll need to call your bank and ask them.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0579f10d1ce90a4cde198f805773cf5a",
"text": "First of all, congratulations on paying off $40k in debt in one year. Mathematically, you'd be better off making the standard car loan payments and putting your extra money toward the student loan. However, there are a few other things that you might want to consider. Over the last year, you've knocked out a whole bunch of different debts. Feels pretty good, doesn't it? At your current rate, you could knock out your new car loan in 6 months. Then you'd only have one debt left. If it sounds to you like it would be nice to only have one debt left, then it might be worth the mathematical disadvantage you would get by paying off the car early instead of putting the money toward the last student loan. The car loan is 0%, but if you are late on a single payment, they will take that opportunity to raise your interest rate to something probably higher than the interest rate of your student loan. For this reason, you may decide it is not worth the hassle, and you'd rather just eliminate the car loan as quickly as possible. Either choice is fine, in my opinion, as long as you have a purpose behind the choice and you are committed to eliminating both debts as quickly as possible. As an aside, it is important to remember that even a 0% loan is not really free money, and needs to be paid back. You know this, of course, but sometimes you see a 0% loan advertized and it feels like free money. It's not. You have probably already paid for the loan by forfeiting a rebate. So although, at this point having already taken this loan and paying for it, you will come out ahead by dragging out your car loan for the full term, in the future do not think that you can make money by buying something at 0% interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8806e9d671a8ff9f311ba73e1e8dfbc",
"text": "To add to @bstpierre's answer, you should automate all your loans except for the one with the highest interest rate. Leave that one manual, and pay the most you can afford each month, to pay it off as quickly as possible. Once you finish that loan, move to the next highest interest rate. Ultimately, this won't be quite as convenient as just having 1 loan. The differences are: You need to set up all the automatic payments. This is probably comparable to in complexity of consolidating your loans. Each time you finish one loan, you need to turn off an automatic payment, and start doing the next loan manually. If you organize yourself well initially, you'll know exactly what order to do the loans in, so this shouldn't take too long. However, unless your consolidated loan has the same interest rate of your cheapest current loan, you will likely save money over-all by using this method.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8ea35706b4e844f515d4c3bf0cadab8",
"text": "\"From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders, usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under \"\"Employee Stock Purchase Plans\"\" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10 years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like features. It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
215bdf4235d634fee6008422229fb8b5
|
Comparing keeping old car vs. a new car lease
|
[
{
"docid": "83d2ae00e3abfe7f86e32371aa6a4afb",
"text": "Look at the basic cost of the lease. Option 1: keep the car for three years. Pay for repairs during that time then sell it for $7,000. Option 2: Sell the current car for $10,000. Lease a new car for three years. Assume no need for repairs during those three years. At the end of the three years return the car in return for $0. Cost of option 1 is $3000 plus repairs. Cost of Option 2 is 36 months x monthly lease cost. The first $83 of the monthly lease cost is to cover the $3000 fixed cost of option 1. The rest of the monthly lease cost is to cover the cost of repairs. Also remember that some leases have a initial down payment due at signing, and penalties for condition, and excess mileage. The lease company may also require a higher level of insurance for the lease to cover their investment if you have an accident. Plus If you fall in love with a different car two year from now, or your needs change you are locked in until the end of the lease period.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4efbccc6cb586ee462049893dea8a984",
"text": "Regarding the opportunity cost comparison, consider the following two scenarios assuming a three-year lease: Option A: Keep your current car for three years In this scenario, you start with a car that's worth $10,000 and end with a car that's worth $7,000 after three years. Option B: Sell your current car, invest proceeds, lease new car Here, you'll start out with $10,000 and invest it. You'll start with $10,000 in cash from the sale of your old car, and end with $10,000 plus investment gains. You'll have to estimate the return of your investment based on your investing style. Option C: Use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new car In this scenario you'll get a reduction in finance charges on your lease, but you'll be out $10,000 at the end. Overall Cost Comparison To compare the total cost to own your current car versus replacing it with a new leased car, first look up the cost of ownership for your current car for the same term as the lease you're considering. Edmunds offers this research and calls it True Cost to Own. Specifically, you'll want to include depreciation, fuel, insurance, maintenance and repairs. If you still owe money you should also factor the remaining payments. So the formula is: Cost to keep car = Depreciation + Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Repairs On the lease side consider taxes and fees, all lease payments, fuel, and maintenance. Assume repairs will be covered under warranty. Assume you will put down no money on the lease and you will finance fees, taxes, title, and license when calculating lease payments. You also need to consider the cost to pay off your current car's loan if applicable. Then you should subtract the gains you expect from investing for three years the proceeds from the sale of your car. Assume that repairs will be covered under warranty. The formula to lease looks like: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments - (gains from investing $10k) For option C, where you use the $10k from proceeds as down payment for new lease, it will be: Lease Cost = Fuel + Insurance + Maintenance + Lease payments + $10,000 A somewhat intangible factor to consider is that you'll have to pay for body damage to a leased car at the end of the lease, whereas you are obviously free to leave damage unrepaired on your own vehicle.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7059a7d0bfe3ad4e22effcd4c6298c90",
"text": "I have a few recommendations/comments: The trick here is to make it clear to the dealer that you will not be getting a new car from them and their only hope of making some money is to sell you your own car. You need to be prepared to walk away and follow through. DON'T buy a new car from them even if you end up turning it in! They could still come back a day later and offer a deal. Leasing a new car every 3 years is not the best use of money. You have to really, really like that new car feeling every three years and be willing to pay a premium for it. If you're a car nut (like me) and want to spend money on a luxury car, it's far wiser to purchase a slightly used luxury vehicle, keep it for 8+ years, and that way you won't have a car payment half the time!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c67a88c4227e0bf04bf2a770ce04fe61",
"text": "When getting a car always start with your bank or credit union. They are very likely to offer better loan rate than the dealer. Because you start there you have a data point so you can tell if the dealer is giving you a good rate. Having the loan approved before going to the dealer allows you to negotiate the best deal for the purchase price for the car. When you are negotiating price, length of loan, down payment, and trade in it can get very confusing to determine if the deal is a good one. Sometimes you can also get a bigger rebate or discount because to the dealer you are paying cash. The general advice is that a lease for the average consumer is a bad deal. You are paying for the most expensive months, and at the end of the lease you don't have a car. With a loan you keep the car after you are done paying for it. Another reason to avoid the lease. It allows you to purchase a car that is two or three years old. These are the ones that just came off lease. I am not a car dealer, and I have never needed a work visa, but I think their concern is that there is a greater risk of you not being in the country for the entire period of the lease.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b4edaa73af0efe82cbb95c36722f852",
"text": "I would like to add that from my own research, a pro to leasing over buying a new vehicle would be that with the lease the entire 7,500 federal incentive is applied directly to the lease, or so they say. If you buy a new car you get a 7,500 federal tax incentive also but if you dont have 7,500 bucks in taxes this wont be as much value. It doesn't sense to me to buy used since you dont get the tax incentive and also if you're in california the 2,500 rebate only applies to buying new or leasing 30 month or longer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067b00eeae4c7564c16d7388d5bed468",
"text": "According to AutoTrader, there are many different reasons, but here are three: New cars have a better resale value and it's easier to predict its resale value in case you default on the loan and they repossess the car. Lenders that are through auto makers can use different incentives for getting you to buy a new car. Used car financing is usually through other banks. People with higher credit scores tend to buy new cars, and therefore can get a lower rate because of their higher credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5143aeb0b0a00bf3eeba177754bca3aa",
"text": "\"Without the specifics of the contract, as well as the specifics of the country/state/city you're moving to, it's hard to say what's legal. But this also isn't law.se, so I'll answer this from the point of view of personal finance, and what you can/should do as next steps. Whenever paying an application fee or a deposit, you need to ensure that you have in writing exactly what you're applying for or putting a deposit in for. Whether this is an apartment, a car, or a loan, before any money changes hands, you need to get in writing exactly what you're putting that money to. So for a car, you'd want to have the complete specifications - make, model, year, color, extra packages, and any relevant loan information if applicable. You wouldn't just hand a dealer $2000 for \"\"a Toyota Camry\"\", you'd make sure it was specified which one, in writing, as well as the total you're expecting to pay. Same for an apartment: you should have, in writing (email is fine) the specific unit you are putting a deposit for, and the specific rate you'll be paying, and the length of time the lease is for. This is to avoid a common tactic: bait and switch, which is what it looks like you've run into. A company puts forth a \"\"nice\"\" model, everything looks good, you get far enough in that it seems like you're locked in - and then it turns out you're really getting a less nice model that's not as ideal as whatever you signed up for. Now if you want to get what you originally signed up for you need to pay extra - presumably \"\"something was wrong in the original ad\"\", or something like that. And all you can hear in the background is Darth Vader... \"\"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.\"\" So; what do you do when you've been bait-and-switched? The best thing to do is typically to walk away. Try to get your application fee back; you may or may not be able to, but it's worth a shot, and even if you cannot, walk away anyway. Someone who is going to bait-and-switch on you is probably not going to be a good landlord; my guess is that rent is going to keep going up beyond the level of the market, and you probably can kiss your security deposit goodbye. Second, if walking away isn't practical for whatever reason, you can find out what the local laws are. Some locations (though very few, sadly) require advertised prices to be accurate; particularly the fact that they re-advertised the unit again for the same rate suggests they are falling afoul of that. You can ask around, search the internet, or best yet talk to a lawyer who specializes in this sort of thing; some of them will be willing to at least answer a few questions for free (hoping to score your business for an easy, profitable lawsuit). Be aware that it's not exactly a good situation to be in, to be suing your landlord; second only to suing your employer, in my opinion, in terms of bad things to do while hoping to continue the relationship. Find an alternative as soon as you can if you go this route. In the future, pay a lot of attention to detail when making application fees. Often the application fee is needed before you get into too much detail - but pick a location that has reasonable application fees, and no extras. For example, in my area, it's typical to pay a $25 application fee, nonrefundable, to do the credit check and background check, and a refundable $100-$200 deposit to hold the unit while doing that; a place that asks for a non-refundable deposit is somewhere I'd simply not apply at all.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46f295dd712175146f902bb3afbad09b",
"text": "\"You are still paying a heavy price for the 'instant gratification' of driving (renting) a brand-new car that you will not own at the end of the terms. It is not a good idea in your case, since this luxury expense sounds like a large amount of money for you. Edited to better answer question The most cost effective solution: Purchase a $2000 car now. Place the $300/mo payment aside for 3 years. Then, go buy a similar car that is 3 years old. You will have almost $10k in cash and probably will need minimal, if any, financing. Same as this answer from Pete: https://money.stackexchange.com/a/63079/40014 Does this plan seem like a reasonable way to proceed, or a big mistake? \"\"Reasonable\"\" is what you must decide. As the first paragraph states, you are paying a large expense to operate the vehicle. Whether you lease or buy, you are still paying this expense, especially from the depreciation on a new vehicle. It does not seem reasonable to pay for this luxury if the cost is significant to you. That said, it will probably not be a 'big mistake' that will destroy your finances, just not the best way to set yourself up for long-term success.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b49d0970285e5d57edafe60614d14bcf",
"text": "Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0811da7ac2144ef3ebc1e2d2b013f5fd",
"text": "\"I strongly discourage leasing (or loans, but at least you own the car at the end of it) in any situation. it's just a bad deal, but that doesn't answer your question. Most new cars are \"\"loss leaders\"\" for dealerships. It's too easy to know what their costs are these days, so they make most of their money though financing. They might make a less than $500 on the sale of a new car, but if it's financed though them then they might get $2,000 - $4,000 commission/sale on the financing contract. Yes, it is possible and entirely likely that the advertised rate will only go to the best qualified lessees (possibly with a credit score about 750 or 800 or so other high number, for example). If the lessee meets the requirements then they won't deny you, they really want your business, but it is more likely to start the process and do all the paperwork for them to come back and say, \"\"Well, you don't qualify for the $99/month leasing program, but we can offer you the $199/month lease.\"\" (since that's the price you're giving from other dealerships). From there you just need to negotiate again. Note: Make sure you always do your research and negotiate the price of the car before talking about financing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "83f722d2f398117aafd522e4bfb3384e",
"text": "I think you are making this more complicated that it has to be. In the end you will end up with a car that you paid X, and is worth Y. Your numbers are a bit hard to follow. Hopefully I got this right. I am no accountant, this is how I would figure the deal: The payments made are irrelevant. The downpayment is irrelevant as it is still a reduction in net worth. Your current car has a asset value of <29,500>. That should make anyone pause a bit. In order to get into this new car you will have to finance the shortfall on the current car (29,500), the price of the vehicle (45,300), the immediate depreciation (say 7,000). In the end you will have a car worth 38K and owe 82K. So you will have a asset value of <44,000>. Obviously a much worse situation. To do this car deal it would cost the person 14,500 of net worth the day the deal was done. As time marched on, it would be more as the reduction in debt is unlikely to keep up with the depreciation. Additionally the new car purchase screen shows a payment of $609/month if you bought the car with zero down. Except you don't have zero down, you have -29,500 down. Making the car payment higher, I estamate 1005/month with 3.5%@84 months. So rather than having a hit to your cash flow of $567 for 69 more months, you would have a payment of about $1000 for 84 months if you could obtain the interest rate of 3.5%. Those are the two things I would focus on is the reduction in net worth and the cash flow liability. I understand you are trying to get a feel for things, but there are two things that make this very unrealistic. The first is financing. It is unlikely that financing could be obtained with this deal and if it could this would be considered a sub-prime loan. However, perhaps a relative could finance the deal. Secondly, there is no way even a moderately financially responsible spouse would approve this deal. That is provided there were not sigificant assets, like a few million. If that is the case why not just write a check?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92f923e3727a7af46c38acb5c46bb1c7",
"text": "You SHOULDN'T lease one if you are going to get an economy car, if you don't drive too much (<15K / year), and you want to hang on to the car for a long time. Otherwise, if you are a regular driver, driving a leased new quality car can be cost effective. Many cars now have bumper-to-bumper warranties that last as long as the lease (say 80K). So there is rarely any extra costs apart from regular maintenance. The sweet spot for most new cars is in the 5th, 6th, or 7th years, after they are paid off. But at that point, you may find you have maintenance bills that are approaching an average of $200 - $300 per month. In which case, a lease starts to look pretty good. I owned a 7 year old Honda Accord that cost only $80 less per month in maintenance than the new leased VW that replaced it. Haven't looked back after that. Into my 3rd car and 9th year of leasing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "968b4cb1fc34aafd1f9a4bb0445e8ef4",
"text": "\"This was a huge question for me when I graduated high school, should I buy a new or a used car? I opted for buying used. I purchased three cars in the span of 5 years the first two were used. First one was $1500, Honda, reliable for one year than problem after problem made it not worth it to keep. Second car was $2800, Subaru, had no problems for 18 months, then problems started around 130k miles, Headgasket $1800 fix, Fixed it and it still burnt oil. I stopped buying old clunkers after that. Finally I bought a Nissan Sentra for $5500, 30,000 miles, private owner. Over 5 years I found that the difference between your \"\"typical\"\" car for $1500 and the \"\"typical\"\" car you can buy for $5500 is actually a pretty big difference. Things to look for: Low mileage, one owner, recent repairs, search google known issues for the make and model based on the mileage of the car your reviewing, receipts, clean interior, buying from a private owner, getting a deal where they throw in winter tires for free so you already have a set are all things to look for. With that said, buying new is expensive for more than just the ticket price of the car. If you take a loan out you will also need to take out full insurance in order for the bank to loan you the car. This adds a LOT to the price of the car monthly. Depending on your views of insurance and how much you're willing to risk, buying your car outright should be a cheaper alternative over all than buying new. Save save save! Its very probably that the hassles of repair and surprise break downs will frustrate you enough to buy new or newer at some point. But like the previous response said, you worked hard to stay out of debt. I'd say save another grand, buy a decent car for $3000 and continue your wise spending habits! Try to sell your cars for more than you bought them for, look for good deals, buy and sell, work your way up to a newer more reliable car. Good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f64b356af646c6d4ba154440a0d05462",
"text": "\"I usually recommend along these lines. If you are going to drive the same car for many years, then buy. Your almost always better to buy, and then drive a car for 10 years than to lease and replace it every 2 years. If you want a new car every two years then lease. You're usually better off leasing if you're going to replace the car before the auto loan is paid off or shortly there after. Also you can get \"\"more car\"\" for the same monthly money via leasing. I honestly would advise you to either buy out your lease, or buy a barely used car. Then drive it for as long as you can. Take the extra money you would spend and spend it on an awesome vacation or something. Also, if you're only driving 15 miles a day, then get a cheap, but solid car. Again, just my advice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13c784beb80c23267dd7392e8d5b5027",
"text": "For a lease, your payment is a function of sale price minus residual value. If the car has a low residual value then the lease payments will be higher. If it has a high residual value then lease payments will be lower but the purchase price at the end of the lease will be higher (potentially even higher than the KBB of the car). There is no gaming the system. Whether you buy now or lease now and buy later, you will be paying for the entire car. Calculate the payments in both scenarios with appropriate interest rates/money factors, sale price, and residual value. This will demonstrate there is no free lunch to be had here. Also, don't forget that financing the vehicle after a three year lease will probably mean a higher interest rate than if you were to finance it all now. With a purchase now you will likely get more favorable financing terms and be able to talk them down on sale price. Leasing will not allow such flexibility generally. Tldr No, that's not how it works. If you plan on owning the car for the duration of a loan (e.g. 5 years) it will be cheaper to just finance now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64f9212da3a1b059f5771311c5862c51",
"text": "Get rid of the lease and buy a used car. A good buy is an Audi because they are popular, high-quality cars. A 2007 Audi A4 costs about $7000. You will save a lot of money by dumping the lease and owning. Go for quality. Stay away from fad cars and SUVs which are overpriced for their value. Full sized sedans are the safest cars. The maintenance on a high-quality old car is way cheaper than the costs of a newer car. Sell the overseas property. It is a strong real estate market now, good time to sell. It is never good to have property far away from where you are. You need to have a timeline to plan investments. Are you going to medical school in one year, three years, five years? You need to make a plan. Every investment is a BUY and a SELL and you should plan for both. If your business is software, look for a revenue-generating asset in that area. An example of a revenue-generating asset is a license. For example, some software like ANSYS has license costs in the region of $30,000 annually. If you broker the license, or buy and re-sell the license you can make a good profit. This is just one example. Use your expertise to find the right vehicle. Make sure it is a REVENUE-GENERATING ASSET.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e09a2ad6a58da909bc41f83bf55ba52e",
"text": "Though non-resident Indians (NRIs) earn their living abroad, their obligation to file tax returns in India doesn't end. With the July 31 deadline for filing returns barely a month away, NRIs need to gear up to file their return if they have income in India that exceeds the basic exemption limit. How to Determine tax residency status: An NRI first needs to determine his tax residency status, that is, whether he falls in the category of resident or non-resident Indian (NRI) for tax purposes. While there may be no ambiguity regarding the status of an NRI who has lived abroad for a long time, those who have moved abroad recently or have returned to India after a long stay abroad need to ascertain their residency status properly.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dcfb2a50841875faa697138d94ad633d
|
Ways to establish credit history for international student
|
[
{
"docid": "8fbab1cfcd794289936e20efb54c2f83",
"text": "I would like to establish credit history - have heard it's useful to gain employment and makes it easy to rent an apartment? Higher credit scores will make it easier with landlords, that's true. As to employment - they do background checks, which means that they usually won't like bad things, but won't care about the good things or no things (they'll know you're a foreigner anyway). Is it safe to assume that this implies I have no history whatsoever? Probably, but you can verify pulling through AnnualCreditReport, don't go around giving your personal information everywhere. Is taking out a secured loan the only way for me? No, but it's one of the easiest. Better would be getting a secured Credit Card, not loan. For loan you'll have to pay interest, for a credit card (assuming you pay off all your purchases immediately) you will only pay the credit card fees (for secured credit cards they charge ~$20-100 yearly fees, so do shop around, the prices vary a lot!). If you're using it wisely, after a year it will be converted to a regular credit card and the collateral will be returned to you with interest (which is actually very competitive, last I heard it was around 2%, twice as much as the online savings accounts). As to a secured loan - you'll be paying 4% to CU for your own money. Doesn't make any sense at all for me. For credit cards you'll at least get some value for your money - convenience, additional fraud protection, etc. The end result will be the same. Usually the credit starts to build up after ~6-12 months (that's why after a year your secured CC will be converted to a regular one). Make sure to have the statement balance in the range of 10-30% of your credit limit, to get the best results. Would it make much better sense to wait till I get a job (then I would have a fixed monthly salary and can apply for a regular CC directly) You can apply, but you'll probably be rejected. As I mentioned in another answer elsewhere, the system in the US is such that you're unable to get credit if you don't already have credit. Which is kindof a magic circle, which you can break with the secured credit card as the least costly solution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dd5be2dd8fe231b5ca85513873d09ec",
"text": "I would like to post a followup after almost a quarter. littleadv's advice was very good, and in retrospect exactly what I should have done to begin with. Qualifying for a secured credit card is no issue for people with blank credit history, or perhaps for anyone without any negative entries in their credit history. Perhaps, cash secured loans are only useful for those who really have so bad a credit history that they do not qualify for any other secured credit, but I am not sure. Right now, I have four cash secured credit cards and planning to maintain a 20% utilization ratio across all of them. Perhaps I should update this answer in 1.5 years!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e50361fe6b086a1d16438a064a7cc265",
"text": "I think you should try to talk with the credit union at your campus first, they may have offer you a credit card even you don't have any credit history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1f1bd2ee9a6d2caf9bfec545571ff8c",
"text": "I came to US as an international student several years ago, and I have also experienced the same situation like most of the international students in finding ways to build credit history. Below I list out some possible approaches you may want to consider: I. Get a student job at campus (recommended) I think the best way is to get a student job in university, say a teaching assistant or student helper. In this case, you can be provided with a social security number and start to build your own credit history. II. Get credit card You can also consider to apply for a credit card. There are indeed some financial institutions that can provide credit cards for international students with no or limited credit scores requirement, say Discover and Bank of America. However, it is relatively hard to get approved, simply because hey may put more restriction in other aspects. For example, you may be required to keep sufficient bank balance above several thousand dollars during a period of time, or you should prove that you have relatives with citizenship in US who can provide your financial aid if needed. III. Apply for a loan (recommended) Getting a loan product is another alternative to get out of this difficult situation, but most of people don’t realize that. There are some FinTech start-ups in United States that specifically focus on international students’ loan financing. One representative example is Westbon (Westbon ), an online lending company that specializes in providing car loan for international students with no SSN or credit history. I once used their loan product to finance a Honda Accord, and Westbon reported my loan transaction records to US credit bureau during my repayment process. Later when I officially got my SSN number, I found my credit history has been automatically synchronized and I don’t have to start from all over again. It never be an easy journey for international students to build credit history in United States. What approach you should make really depends on you own situation. I hope the information above can be useful and good luck for your credit journey!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4248acc7fc94e58e4871fe016df185da",
"text": "There's an excellent new service called SelfScore that offers US credit cards to international students. They work with students without a credit history and even without an SSN by using other qualifying factors such as major, financial resources in their home country, and employability upon graduation. Worth clarifying: it's neither a secured credit card nor a prepaid card. It's a proper US credit card with no annual fees and a relatively low APR designed to help students build US credit. The spending limit is relatively small but that probably doesn't matter for just building a credit history.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a20d9562e99742ffa112be51363bb7c9",
"text": "If I use my credit card on my ITIN and behave like a good guy (paying everything on time), will it create history for my SSN next year or will I have to start from scratch? Yes, you'll keep your history, it will be reported on your SSN when you update your creditors with it. I have an option of using a secured card v/s an unsecured one. Which one is better from the view of my credit history? The one which you don't have to pay for. Consider the value of money you're using for the secured card, and all the fees and interest you expect to pay. Unless you're planning on a mortgage in the next couple of years, there's no rush with the credit. It is definitely not worth paying money for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4b52b0c13dd806ac5f96114ba0c7cd6",
"text": "Good credit is calculated (by many lenders) by taking your FICO score which is calculated based upon what is in your credit report. Building credit generally means building up your FICO score. Your FICO score is impacted my many factors, one small one of which is your utilization ratio of your installment loans like student loans. This is the ratio of the current balance to your original balance. To improve your score (slightly) you would want a lower ratio. I would recommend paying your student loan down to 75% ratio as fast as you can and then you can go back to $50/month. A much better way to improve your FICO score is to have revolving credit. Your student loans are not revolving, they are installment loans. Therefore, you should open at least one credit card (assuming you currently have none) right away. The longer you have had a credit card open, the better your FICO score gets. Your revolving credit utilization ratio is way more important than your installment loan ratio. Therefore, to maximize your FICO, try to never have more than 10% utilization on your revolving credit report to the credit bureaus each month. Only the current month's ratio affects your score at any given moment. You can ensure you don't go above 10% by paying your balance before the statement cuts each month to get it below 10% way before any payment would be due. (You should always pay your remaining credit card statement balance in full each month by the due date after the statement cuts to avoid any interest charges.) Note that there is a slight FICO advantage to having at least one major bank credit card instead of just only credit union credit cards. Also, never let all your revolving credit report a zero balance in a month, you must always have at least $1 reporting to the credit bureaus on at least one of your open credit cards or your FICO score will take a big negative hit. If you cannot get a normal credit card, go to a credit union and find one that offers secured credit cards, or a bank that does. A secured credit card is where you place a deposit with the bank that they hold and give you a credit limit to match your security. Ideally it would be a card that graduates to unsecured after your demonstrate good history with them. For example, the Navy Federal Credit Union secured card unsecures for many people. I also believe the Wells Fargo Bank credit card (you can join if there is a family member who served or a roomate who did) also will unsecure. The reason you want it to unsecure and not be forced to open a new account to get an unsecured account is that you want your average age and oldest age of open revolving credit accounts to be as high as possible as this is another impact on your FICO score. Credit unions that anyone can join include, Digital Federal Credit Union, the Pentagon Federal Credit Union (which offers a secured card that does not graduate), and The State Department Federal Credit Union (also offers secured card that I think does not graduate). One other method to boost your FICO score is to get added as an authorized user on one of your parent's credit cards that has been open a long time. Not all lenders will report such an authorized user, however, ones that are known to do so are: Bank of America, Citi Bank, and Capital One. It is a good sign that it will report if they ask for the social security number of the authorized user. However, note that the Authorized User addition can have no impact if the lender is using one of the newer versions of the FICO scoring model, only the older versions reward you for the age of accounts for which you are an authorized user. A very long term boost is to open your first American Express card underwritten directly by Amex such as their Zync card which is pretty easy to get. The advantage of American express is that they remember the date your first credit card was opened with them and if you open new accounts in the future they will back date the date of their opening to match the date your first card was opened. If you let your membership lapse, be sure to record the account number and date opened in your personal files so that you can help them locate it again if you reopen as they can have trouble if it has been on the order of ten years or more. Finally, note that the number of accounts opened in the last twelve months is a small negative mark on your score (along with number of inquiries), so if you open a lot of accounts all at once, in addition to bringing down your average age of accounts, you will also get dinged for how many were opened in the last year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f00758a8e973c9613c82d04f248c9dd3",
"text": "\"The other option apart from the above which I feel is quite good is \"\"Travel Card\"\" [also called Forex Card] issued in USD. These cards are like prepaid debit cards. They are available from almost quite a few Indian Banks like HDFC / ICICI / UTI. The limit for students is around 100 K USD per year. http://www.hdfcbank.com/personal/cards/prepaid_cards/forexplus_card/pre_forex_elg.htm The card can be reloaded by any amount [i think the minimum is USD 100] by visiting the Branch or certain Forex agents. There loading fee is INR 75. The Fx is typical Card Rate prevailing on the day. In US this card can be used as a credit card for almost everything [I have used this without any hassel]. Avoid using the card for blocking anything [at Hotel for room booking, or initial block at car rentals]. Although its mentioned that there is a withdrawl fees, i was never charged anything for withdrawls. The card comes with an internet based login to monitor account balance and transactions. Any unused funds can be withdrawn in India. The payment will be make in INR.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07a8e5710dceceec0f5f187e0a021a6f",
"text": "The negative effects of multiple hard inquiries in a short span of time don't stack, they're treated as a single inquiry (and inquiries aren't *that* bad anyway, the only ding you by a few points). The bigger problem here is the **other** reason your bank gave you - Too many overdrawn accounts. If you don't believe you currently have any overdrawn accounts, you need to pull your credit report *now* and make sure it's accurate. Maybe there's a mistake on your credit, maybe you're a victim of identity theft. That said, 1.5 years isn't really very long in credit terms for managing to keep your record clean, so maybe your credit just needs a few more years to heal. But *definitely* pull your credit report to rule out the worst possibilities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28d8fb25f927be0346124fa6b356d346",
"text": "You could conceivably open a few accounts. For example, a bank account and a credit card account. Then the accounts will be older when evaluated for credit when you return. This would look better than opening fresh accounts later. But don't expect a big difference in score. And you'll be stuck with those accounts in the future, otherwise you lose the benefit. I wouldn't worry about maintaining balances now. You can wait until you come back. Occasional purchases may be helpful. What they really want to see is a regular and sustained use of accounts without missing payments or overextending. But if you're not going to be here, you can't really do that. Note that good credit scores are based on seven years of data, preferably a lot of it. Opening a few accounts can't substitute for that, even if you put balances on them. If you're not here, you won't be paying rent or utilities. You won't have a proven payment history on the most common accounts. If money were no object, you could do something like purchase a house or condo that you could rent out, utilities included. That would build up a payment history. But if money were no object, you probably wouldn't be worried about your credit score. It's more practical to just live normally and be sure that you always live within your means so that you don't experience negative credit events. You might think about why you want a good credit score. Is it to borrow a lot of money? You might be able to spend money to achieve that. Is it to save money on future borrowing? If it costs money now, how much will you save total? Opening accounts now that you won't really use until you return is about the only thing that you can do that won't cost you money. Perhaps put a balance on the bank account--at least you'll get that money back some day. Maintaining a balance on the credit cards would cost you money in interest charges, and you don't really benefit from an improved credit score until you use your credit. So the interest fees aren't really buying you anything.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddfbfd39ee526adc9d0f4d5bf220a1e8",
"text": "How is it more difficult? All you have to do if you are legit staying for at least 2 years is just get a cosigner. Also if they really did care, they would find all of us that did it, and collect the debt, and therefore it wouldn't be such a deterrence to give E2 guys visas. They would actually profit off it with the interests, lates fees, ect. They would WANT you to leave without paying. So if they dont care, whats the big deal?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b18fb5a8c31d7f4df58b2b5e06a885d",
"text": "\"I will disagree with the other answers. The idea that there is some to establish a \"\"credit history\"\" is largely a myth propagated by loaners who see it as positive propaganda to increase the numbers of their prospective customers. You will find some people who claim they were rejected for a card because they had no \"\"credit history,\"\" but in every case what these people are not telling you is they also had no income (were students, house wives, or others with no steady income). Anyone who has income can get a credit card or other line of credit regardless of their \"\"credit history.\"\" Even people who have gone bankrupt can get credit cards if they have proven income. If your answer to this is that \"\"you have no income, but still want a credit card\"\", I would advise you to re-read that sentence several times and think carefully about it. I have never had a credit card and never missed having one, except when trying to rent cars which was somewhat complex and annoying to do in the 2005-2010 time period without a credit card. Credit cards have a number of disadvantages: I definitely agree with those who will tell you credit cards are convenient, they are, but for someone who wants to be financially prudent and build wealth they are unnecessary and unwise. If you don't believe me, read \"\"The Total Money Makeover\"\" by David Ramsey, one of the most famous and best-selling books ever written on personal finance. He actually will give you much better and detailed reasons to avoid CCs than me. After all, who am I, just some dumb rich schmuck with lots of money and no debt and a happy life. Comment on Culture I think it is pretty funny we have a lot of spendthrift Americans in this thread basically telling the OP to get lots of credit cards as soon as possible. If you asked the same question in Japan you would get completely different answers and votes. In Japan its hard to even use credit cards. The people there are much more responsible financially than Americans; the average Japanese person has much higher wealth than a person with the same income in the United States. One of the reasons for this, among many, is that the average Japanese person does not use credit cards. A Japanese person, if you translated this question for them, would think the whole thing a typical example of how foolish Americans are.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00b6bde49e1b1a7faf3b2b014491a62f",
"text": "I got a credit card as a student with no income, not even a part time job. They called me, I agreed to one thing and they did another and now I have an old credit history. They don't do this anymore. But technically, student loan debt is unsecured?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879a2f9d08d157b5b6885499455c88a8",
"text": "Generally, banks will report your loan to at least one (if not all three) credit bureaus - although that is not required by law. The interest you're paying, in addition to your insurance isn't justifiable for building credit. I would recommend paying the car off and then perhaps applying for a secure credit card if you are worried about being rejected. Of course, since you have very little credit, applying for an unsecured card and getting rejected won't hurt you in the long run. If you are rejected, you can always go for a secured credit card the second time. As I mentioned in my comments, it's better to show 6 months of on-time payments than to have no payment history at all. So if your goal is to secure an apartment near campus, I'm sure you're already a step ahead of the other students.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0a73935bc6dc247beaced5699dbfe8b",
"text": "The SCHUFA explicitly says on their website that their scoring system is a secret. However, if your goal is to be credit-worthy for example to get financing for a house or a car or whatever, just pay any loans and your credit card back on time and you'll be fine. There is no need to build a credit history. I just got a mortgage on a new house without any real credit history. I have one credit card which I only use on vacations because some countries don't take my debit card, and I always put money on it before I use it, so I've technically never borrowed money from a bank at all. My banker looked at my SCHUFA with me and we saw that there was nothing in there except for the credit card, which has a 500€ limit and if I maxed it out, the monthly interest would be 6,80€ so he added that 6,80€ to my expenses calculation and that was it. If you're having trouble getting a loan and you don't know why, you can ask the SCHUFA for the data they have on you and you can correct any mistakes they might have made. Sometimes, especially when you have the same full name and birth date as somebody else, the SCHUFA does get things mixed up and you have to sort it out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c874ef74bab9f06158c5ad1e9c6b530",
"text": "\"1. Your oldest active credit agreement is not very old This is fairly straight forward. If you've not been exposed to borrowing for a reasonable length of time, people won't want to lend you money. They have no reason to have any confidence in your ability to repay them. As other said, it's pretty much a case of proving yourself by being good with credit over a period of time. 2. You have no active credit card accounts Credit reference agencies have to consider a variety of factors for a variety of purposes. Notably, they will be used for credit cards, unsecured loans, mortgages, and secured loans such as vehicle finance applications. These all have varying types of customer, and some will be inherently more risky than others. For instance, someone with a mortgage on a home is far more likely to make payments because they would be homeless without, however someone with a finance agreement on a car is relatively less likely to make those payments because all they stand to lose is their car. Consider that the most fruitful information the lender will get is a score and some breakdown of how it's generated, it's a very general understanding of your history. For that reason, having a wide variety of credit is very important. A good variety of credit to have would be one secured loan (e.g car finance) to get started, as well as at least one revolving unsecured credit account (e.g a credit card), and later on in your \"\"credit life\"\" an unsecured fixed term loan (e.g a loan for something which has nothing secured against it). I say the above reluctantly, because that's how I increased my credit score from 450 to 999 - first step was the car finance where in 3 months or so I changed from 450 to around 600, with a credit card I was approaching 900, and once I had an unsecured loan for 8 months I hit 999 - now I have all of the above plus a competitive mortgage and remain at 999. Whether each is mandatory to maintain 999 is debatable but based on personal experience, it seems reasonable.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9410aac2831c33bba5318245fae862a3",
"text": "\"As a person who has had several part time assistants in the past I will offer you a simple piece of advise that should apply regardless of what country the assistant is located. If you have an assistant, personal or business, virtual or otherwise, and you don't trust that person with this type of information, get a different assistant. An assistant is someone who is supposed to make your life easier by off loading work. Modifying your records before sending them every month sounds like you are creating more work for yourself not less. Either take the leap of faith to trust your assistant or go somewhere else. An assistant that you feel you have to edit crucial information from is less than useful. That being said, there is no fundamental reason to believe that an operation in the Philippines or anywhere else is any more or less trustworthy than an operation in your native country. However, what is at issue is the legal framework around your relationship and in particular your recourse if something goes wrong. If you and your virtual assistant are both located in the US you would have an easier time collecting damages should something go wrong. I suggest you evaluate your level of comfort for risk vs. cost. If you feel that the risk is too high to use an overseas service versus the savings, then find someone in the states to do this work. Depending on your needs and comfort you might want to seek out a CPA or other licensed/bonded professional. Yes the cost might be higher however you might find that it is worth it for your own piece of mind. As a side note you might even consider finding a local part-time assistant. This can often be more useful than a virtual assistant and may not cost as much as you think. If you can live without someone being bonded. (or are willing to pay for the bonding fee) yourself, depending on your market and needs you may be able to find an existing highly qualified EA or other person that wants some after hours work. If you are in a college town, finance, accounting or legal majors make great assistants. They will usually work a couple hours a week for \"\"beer money\"\", they have flexible schedules and are glad to have something pertinent to their degree to put on their resume when they graduate. Just be prepared to replace them every few years as they move on to real jobs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6605f0d1e1b5d93a94c0bb4af0b3ae50",
"text": "Obviously the only way to have good credit is by owing money, and making payments as scheduled. To do this I would do everything I could to place all of your required expenses on a credit card. This can include paying rent, food, transportation, etc. These are all payments that you already make, but simply move then through a different payment vehicle. It sounds like at this time you may not have a credit card that allows you to do this, but I would watch out for those cards that come in via mail with all kinds of special deals. While you have not mentioned if you have any of this, make sure that you keep up with your past debt and negotiate repayment if needed. Once your credit improves, you should begin to see doors opening that are problems now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e08839cdf11b0ddd69897437b1b0ad",
"text": "Something I'd like to plant firmly into your mind - If you're able to save up enough money to buy the things you want outright, credit will be of little use to you. Many people find once they've accumulated very good credit scores by use of good financial habits, that they rarely end up using credit, and get little out of having a 'great' credit score compared to an 'average' credit score. Of course, a lot of that would depend on your financial situation, but it's something to keep in mind. As stated by others, and documented widely online, you don't need to make payments on a loan or carry a card balance to build your credit history. Check your credit on a popular site, such as Credit Karma (No affiliation). There, you'll see a detailed breakdown of the different areas of your credit profile that matter; things like: The best thing I could recommend is get a credit line or credit card, and use it responsibly. Carrying a balance will waste money on interest, much like the car payment. Just having it and not over-using it (Or not using it at all) will 'build' your credit history. Of course, some institutions may close your account after X number of years of inactivity. With this in mind, I'd say it's safe to pay off the car loan. Read your agreement and make sure there aren't early termination / early payment fees for this. Edit: There have been notes in the comments section's of question/answer's here about concerns with getting apartment. My two cents here: Most apartments I've seen check your credit for negative marks. Having no credit history, and thus never missing a payment or having a judgement made against you, will likely be enough to get you into most normal-quality apartments, assuming the rest of your application / profile is in order, like: - Good references, if asked for them - At least 2.5x rent payment in gross income etc, things like that. If they really think you're a risk, they may ask for a larger deposit (Though I'm sure in some areas there may be restrictions on whether they can do this, or how much they can do it) and still let you rent there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "08779e8c2ebc378095806f40072fea64",
"text": "Well, I know why the Rabobank in the Netherlands does it. I can go back around one year and a half with my internet banking. But I can only go further back (upto 7 years) after contacting the bank and paying €5,- per transcript (one transcript holds around a month of activities). I needed a year worth of transcripts for my taxes and had to cough up more than €50. EDIT It seems they recently changed their policy in a way that you can request as many transcripts as you like for a maximum cost of €25,- so the trend to easier access is visible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a23d04a21849f27c4f61619698661abf
|
Can mortgage insurance replace PMI?
|
[
{
"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": "26d1fa0919c5d0cd9e23e44fd94ee05e",
"text": "yeah, i get that it's not optional. just sucks that nothing has changed substantially since i closed on the loan 11 months ago (same PMI, same HO, essentially the same property taxes) and now i have to pay more. seems like the closing docs could have taken into account timing of those payments so that i primed the pump with enough from the beginning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ade1a70a1ee0761e9bad174726ff779e",
"text": "\"I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? It's to the banks advantage to reduce the payments in that situation. If they were willing to loan you money previously, they should still be willing. If they keep the payments the same, then you'll pay off the loan faster. Just playing with a spreadsheet, paying off a third of the mortgage amount would eliminate the back half of the payments or reduces payments by around two fifths (leaving off any escrow or insurance). If you can afford the payments, I'd lean towards leaving them at the current level and paying off the loan early. But you know your circumstances better than we do. If you are underfunded elsewhere, shore things up. Fully fund your 401k and IRA. Fill out your emergency fund. Buy that new appliance that you don't quite need yet but will soon. If you are paying PMI, you should reduce the principal down to the point where you no longer have to do so. That's usually more than 20% equity (or less than an 80% loan). There is an argument for investing the remainder in securities (stocks and bonds). If you itemize, you can deduct the interest on your mortgage. And then you can deduct other things, like local and state taxes. If you're getting a higher return from securities than you'd pay on the mortgage, it can be a good investment. Five or ten years from now, when your interest drops closer to the itemization threshold, you can cash out and pay off more of the mortgage than you could now. The problem is that this might not be the best time for that. The Buffett Indicator is currently higher than it was before the 2007-9 market crash. That suggests that stocks aren't the best place for a medium term investment right now. I'd pay down the mortgage. You know the return on that. No matter what happens with the market, it will save you on interest. I'd keep the payments where they are now unless they are straining your budget unduly. Pay off your thirty year mortgage in fifteen years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "224cb615b8a4f5c87aa56f006339a9b0",
"text": "Fire insurance, as you have discovered, is a complete ripoff. Most people pay fire insurance all their lives with no benefit whatsoever, and those such as yourself who are lucky enough to get a payout find that it is completely insufficient to replace their loss. I once computed the actual beneficial net present financial value of my fire insurance policy and it came out to $40 per month. The cost was $800 per month. That is typical. Homeowners pay $500 to $800 per year for something that is worth $30 to $50 per year. Ironically banks would actually make more money from mortgages if they did not require mortgagees to buy insurance, but nevertheless they insist on it. It is not about logic, but about fear and irrationality. When I paid off my mortgage and gained ownership of my home the first thing I did was cancel my fire insurance. I now invest the money I would have wasted on insurance, making money instead of losing it. Being compelled to throw money down the toilet on fire insurance is one of the hidden costs of a homeowners mortgage in the United States. In your situation, the main option is to borrow the money to rebuild the house using the land as collateral, if the land is valuable enough. Of course, you still owe the money for your original mortgage on your now (non-existent) home. So, to get a home, you will have to have the income to service two mortgages. A loan officer at a reputable bank can tell you whether you have the income necessary to support two mortgages. If you were maxed out on your original mortgage, then you may not have enough income and you are screwed. In that case you will have to go back to renting and gradually paying off your old mortgage. (If it were me, I would sue the insurance company pro se as a way to get the necessary money to rebuild the home, because insurance companies roll over like a $20 hooker when they get sued. Juries hate insurance companies. But I am unusual in that I love courtrooms and suing people. Most people are terrified of courtrooms though, so it may not be an option for you.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48d4de19ca33dd97959802d8aa37a1c6",
"text": "The issue is should you get one large policy or several smaller policies. Multiple polices have flexibility becasue if the need goes away you can drop the policy. The problem with multiple small policies is that there is overhead that you pay for multiple times. Assume that you want 100K coverage and are age x. That policy will cost you a certain amount based on a base amount plus a percentage of the coverage. The percentage is based on age, sex, smoking, health. If you double the coverage the price doesn't double becasue the base amount is constant. This base amount covers the cost of setting up your policy and maintaining the records and billing. Keep in mind that the coverage you are asking about is not the mortgage insurance the lender makes you purchase when you have a small down payment. You are asking about a policy to cover your debts and still provide money for survivors. Go with your current agent company and ask them to run the numbers: new additional policy, increasing amount of current policy. Go with what meets your needs. Buying a house is one of those life events where you should review your insurance and retirement needs, and adjust accordingly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2cfb8d79463385c8ed145db074ecd84b",
"text": "\"Probably not, though there are a few things to be said for understanding what you are doing here. Primerica acts as an independent financial services firm and thus has various partners that specialize in various financial instruments and thus there may exist other firms that Primerica doesn't use that could offer better products. Now, how much do you want to value your time as it could take more than a few months to go through every possible insurance firm and broker to see what rate you could get for the specific insurance you want. There is also the question of what constitutes best here. Is it paying the minimal premiums before getting a payout? That would be my interpretation though this requires some amazing guesswork to know when to start paying a policy to pay out so quickly that the insurance company takes a major loss on the policy. Similarly, there are thousands of mutual funds out there and it is incredibly difficult to determine which ones would be best for your situation. How much risk do you want to take? How often do you plan to add to it? What kind of accounts are you using for these investments, e.g. IRAs or just regular taxable accounts? Do tax implications of the investments matter? Thus, I'd likely want to suggest you consider this question: How much trust do you have that this company will work well for you in handling the duty of managing your investments and insurance needs? If you trust them, then buy what they suggest. If you don't, then buy somewhere else but be careful about what kind of price are you prepared to pay to find the mythical \"\"best\"\" as those usually only become clear in hindsight. When it comes to trusting a company in case, there are more than a few factors I'd likely use: Questions - How well do they answer your questions or concerns from your perspective? Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, \"\"What the heck are you thinking for asking that?\"\" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, \"\"We'll figure it out\"\" kind of person? This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative? This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica? Do they generally lose people frequently? Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato? Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now. In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dc497d277202eaf06f2613555187913",
"text": "\"I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind. Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI? Edit - I just re-read the link. The line \"\"you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down\"\" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c660aa77d34da2bf069924c305d831ea",
"text": "\"I am going to respond to a very thin sliver of what's going on. Skip ahead 4 years. When buying that house, is it better to have $48K in the bank but a $48K student loan, or to have neither? That $48K may very well be what it would take to put you over the 20% down payment threshhold thus avoiding PMI. Banks let you have a certain amount of non-mortgage debt before impacting your ability to borrow. It's the difference between the 28% for the mortgage, insurance and property tax, and the total 38% debt service. What I offer above is a bit counter-intuitive, and I only mention it as you said the house is a priority. I'm answering as if you asked \"\"how do I maximize my purchasing power if I wish to buy a house in the next few years?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f2487f643a187dfc1e4bd144bd1b541",
"text": "If the child can take over the life insurance when they wish to get a mortgage or have their own children, there may be a case for buying insurance for the child in the event that your child's health is not good enough for them to get cover at that time. However I don’t think this type of insurance is worth having.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d141ce8a573675facfabe058a4d18a1",
"text": "In such a situation, is there any reason, financial or not, to NOT pay as many points as mortgage seller allows? I can think of a few reasons not to buy points, in the scenario you described: If interest rates decrease you could be better off refinancing to a lower rate than buying points now. If buying points reduced your down payment below 20% then the PMI would more than offset the benefit of having purchased points. Your situation changes and you aren't able to stay in the home as long as planned. That said, current interest rates are pretty low, so I'd probably gamble on them not getting too much lower anytime soon. I also assume that if you can afford as many points as they allow, that you wouldn't have to dip below 20% down payment even with points. Edit: Others have mentioned that it's important to note opportunity cost when calculating the benefit of purchasing points, I agree, you wouldn't want to buy points at a rate that saved you less than you could earn elsewhere. Personally, I've not seen a points scenario that didn't yield more benefit than market average returns, but that could be due to my market, or just coincidence, you should definitely calculate the benefit for your scenario and shop for a good lender. Don't forget that points are tax deductible in the year paid when calculating their benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "42ea5f7d18bb26c23438d6b9b3c31ad8",
"text": "Can you take 2 loans -- an 80% and an 8% loan? Same payments as doing PMI, but the 8% can be paid off in pretty short order and drop payments significantly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6389ebc57dc4d089781c906ebc2a5a8",
"text": "\"As the answer above states, future inflation mitigates \"\"unwise\"\" for a longer term mortgage, at least in financial-only terms. But consider that, if you lose your ability to make payments for long enough time ANYTIME during term, the lending institution has a right to repossess, leaving you with NOTHING or worse for all the maintenance you've had to do. You can never know, but eleven years into my mortgage, I lost enough of my income for just long enough time to have to sell for just enough to pay the remainder of the mortgage and walk away with empty pockets. To help clarify understanding even better, contrast the 30-yr mortgage with the other extreme: save up and own from day one. When I did the math a few years ago, buying with a 30-year mortgage would cost cumulatively almost 3 times the real house value in mortgage payments with never the freedom to suspend payments when I might need to. Being a freedom-loving American, I determined to buy a house with cash. DON'T FORGET that mortgageable properties are over-priced just because buyers less wise than you are so willing to borrow to buy them, so I decided to buy some fixer-upper that no bank would lend on. I found such a fixer-upper, paid cash, never have to worry about repossession by a lender, can continue to save up for my dream home which I'll own a lot sooner, and will have a nice increase in house value while I fix it up to help get me there, and NO INSURANCE PAYMENTS to some insurer who'll tell me what I can't do with MY property. Let the next buyer of your fixed-up, paid-off house pay YOU the over-priced amount they are willing to pay just because THEY can get that 30-year mortgage, and you enjoy the freedom to dream and adjust your budget to the needs of the moment and end up with a house in 30 years (15, more realistically) that is 2.5 times more valuable. And keep from fighting with your spouse over finances in the meantime.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f225d65a2aee4618d33e468bb0ff6024",
"text": "The key to understanding a mortgage is to look at an amortization schedule. Put in 100k, 4.5% interest, 30 years, 360 monthly payments and look at the results. You should get roughly 507 monthly P&I payment. Amortization is only the loan portion, escrow for taxes and insurance and additional payments for PMI are extra. You'll get a list of all the payments to match the numbers you enter. These won't exactly match what you really get in a mortgage, but they're close enough to demonstrate the way amortization works, and to plan a budget. For those terms, with equal monthly payments, you'll start paying 74% interest from the first payment. Each payment thereafter, that percentage drops. The way this is all calculated is through the time value of money equations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money. Read slowly, understand how the equations work, then look at the formula for Repeating Payment and Present Value. That is used to find the monthly payment. You can validate that the formula works by using their answer and making a spreadsheet that has these columns: Previous balance, payment, interest, new balance. Each line represents a month. Calculate interest as previous balance * APR/12. Calculate new balance as previous balance minus payment plus interest. Work through all this for a 1 year loan and you will understand a lot better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f2b857dc7e119160aeab8bb78001daa0",
"text": "Generally, paying down your mortgage is a bad idea. Mortgages have very low interest rates and the interest is tax deductable. If you have a high interest mortgage, or PMI, you might consider it, but otherwise, your money is better off in some sort of index fund. On the other hand, if your choices are paying down a mortgage or blowing your money on hookers and booze, by all means do the mortgage. Typical priorities are: Dave Ramsey has a more detailed plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6cb5fce32e9e7c61fa18d1a6025112a",
"text": "For Option 2 - do you really think you can guarantee an average return of 8% here. Historical returns are no guarantee of future returns. Even if you could get higher returns for option 2 than the interest rate on the mortgage, are you able to cover all the additional fees with the PMI in placing such a low down payment? The wiser choice in my opinion would be to chose option 1.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b69aba6c30988ff69fc703049cb5272b
|
Timing between loans and applying for a new credit card
|
[
{
"docid": "255f77421bfb1ed51c87e966015ae910",
"text": "There were several areas where the mortgage and car loan have affected your credit. The mortgage had the following impacts, The car loan (purchased shortly after the house) had the following impacts, You did not mention your payment history, but since you had an 800 prior to the house purchase, we can assume that your payment history is current (nothing late). You did not mention your credit utilization, but you want to keep your utilization low (various experts suggest 10%, 20% and 30% as thresholds). The down payment on the house likely drained your available funds, and replacing the car may have also put stress on your funds. And when you buy a house, often there are additional expenses that further strain budgets. My guess is that your utilization percentage has increased. My suggestion would be to reduce your utilization ratio on your revolving accounts. And since you have plenty of credit lines, you might want to payoff the car. Your Chase card has a good age, which helps with age of credit, and though you will find experts that say you should only have 2-4 revolving accounts (credit cards), other experience shows that having accounts with age on them is a good thing. And having a larger number of accounts does not cause problems (unless you have higher utilization or you miss payments). You did not mention whether the Chase card has any fees or expenses, as that would be a reason to either negotiate with Chase to reduce or eliminate the fees, or to cancel the card. Have you checked your credit report for errors? You can get a free report from each of the three bureaus once per year.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "34d633282f0e3a21679c224f05219a83",
"text": "Utilization is near real-time. What that means is that what is reported is what is taken in terms of debt-to-income (DTI) ratios. When a mortgage broker pulls your credit, they will pull the latest balances with the minimum payments. This is what is taken to determine DTI along with your gross monthly income. If you do not pay your account in full before the statement date, then you more than likely will have to wait an additional statement cycle before it reports to the credit bureaus. Therefore, your utilization is dynamic and the history of your utilization month-to-month is not recorded forever. Only the current balance. What is maintained and reported is your payment history. So you want to never be late if you want to be approved anytime soon for a mortgage. A lower DTI will not help your interest rate. As long as you stay away from the maximum DTI for the mortgage vehicle you are attempting to be approved for (VA, FHA, Conventional, etc), then your DTI should not be a concern. If you are borderline at the time of underwriting, you can take the opportunity and pay off the balances. The mortgage company can then do what is called a credit supplement which entails contacting those lenders where you have proven you have a zero balance and manually input the zero balance cards, that have not yet reported to the bureaus, in your final application to the mortgage company for underwriting approval.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2bc1b4f5d84a8887f49785aa4c89002",
"text": "Except for the fact that canceling credit cards will hurt your credit, either by increasing your utilization ratio or decreasing the length of your credit lines if you cancel the oldest card, which makes it that much harder to get the good interest rates available on other loans.",
"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": "b1ec5b1cd6585ec8dbb45a4727ef590f",
"text": "First, before we talk about anything having to do with the credit score, we need the disclaimer that the exact credit score formulas are proprietary secrets that have not been revealed. Therefore, all we have to go on are broad generalities that FICO has given us. That having been said, the credit card debt utilization portion of your score generally has at least two components: an overall utilization, and a per-card utilization. Your overall utilization is taken by adding up all your credit card debt and all your credit limits and dividing. Using your numbers above, you are sitting at about 95%. The per-card utilization is the individual utilization of each card. Your five cards range in utilization from 69% to 100%. Paying one card over another has no affect on your overall utilization, but obviously will change the per-card utilization of the one you pay first. So, to your question: Is it better on the credit score to have one low-util card and one high-util card, or to have two medium-util cards? I haven't read anything that definitively answers this question. Here is my advice to you: The big problem you have is the debt, not the credit score. Your credit card debt should be treated like an emergency that needs to be taken care of as quickly as you possibly can. Instead of trying to optimize your credit score, you should be trying to minimize the number of days until all of your credit cards are completely paid off. The credit score will take care of itself once you get your financial situation back on track. There is debate about the order in which one should pay off their debts, but the fact of the matter is that the order is not as significant as the intensity at which you pay them all off. Dedicate yourself to getting rid of the debts as fast as possible, and it won't matter much which order they get paid off in. Finally, to answer your question, I recommend that you attack the card debt one at a time instead of trying to pay them off evenly. Not because it will optimize your credit score, but because it will help you focus your debt-reduction energy as you work on resolving your debt emergency. Fortunately, the credit utilization portion of the credit score has no history, so once you pay all of these off, the utilization portion of your score will get better immediately, and the path you took to get there will be irrelevant. After the credit cards are completely paid off, and you have resolved never to spend money that you don't have again, it is time to work on the student loans....",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3758baa568ae3cedb49f4c33837012cb",
"text": "If the billing cycle is 2 to 3 months, it would mean Banks have to give credit for a longer period and it makes the entire business less profitable as well as more risky compared to the Monthly billing cycle. For example the current monthly billing cycle with a date say of 14th, means if you swipe your card on 1st day, one would effectively get a credit for 30+14, around 44 days. If you swipe on last day, one would get a credit for 14 days. On an average 22 days of credit. If we make this 3 months, the credit period would increase on an average (90+14)/2, 52 days. From a risk point of view, on monthly cycle if there is non-payment its flagged much earlier compared to a 3 months cycle. On offering different dates, shop around. In the older times the cycles were different, however with individuals having several cards, and trying to optimize every purchase to maximize credit period. Quite a few banks have streamlined it to monthly cycle. Shop around and some banks should be able to offer you different dates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc21ff450a0a0809f018f1758627b97f",
"text": "\"Sometimes when you are trying to qualify for a loan, the lender will ask for proof of your account balances and costs. Your scheme here could be cause for some questions: \"\"why are you paying $20-30k to your credit card each month, is there a large debt you haven't disclosed?\"\". Or perhaps \"\"if you lost your job, would you be able to afford to continue to pay $20-30k\"\". Of course this isn't a real expense and you can stop whenever you want, but still as a lender I would want to understand this fully before loaning to someone who really does need to pay $20-30k per month. Who knows this might hiding some troublesome issues, like perhaps a side business is failing and you're trying to keep it afloat.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e18a3c6cbff373b8ab0f583250150a6",
"text": "A friend of mine has two credit cards. He has specifically arranged with the card issuers so that the billing cycles are 15 days out of sync. He uses whichever card has more recently ended its billing cycle, which gives him the longest possible time between purchase and the due date to avoid interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4827d53c590fe2fcba407f202adb3835",
"text": "Your priorities should be: If you end up with additional debt from, say, credit cards, you should probably try to get rid of that first, as it's almost certainly at a higher interest rate than a subsidized student loan. Because you actually have a grace period, I assume these are Federally subsidized loans. Note that there are alternative payment plans available if you are unemployed/underemployed that you should take advantage of, if need be. See Income-based Repayment and related pages for details.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f00d60fd18e51707b25dbad4667ba28b",
"text": "See the accepted answer for this question. What effect will credit card churning for frequent flyer miles have on my credit score? This does not directly answer 'how often...' that you asked, but it states that the answerer opens 5-15 accounts per year. So the answer to your question is, as often as you want, as long as you manage your account ages. The reason for this is that there are two factors in opening a new account that affect your credit card score. One is average age of accounts. The other is credit inquiries. That answerer, with FICO in high 700s, sees about a 5% swing based on new cards and closing old ones. You'll have to manage average age of accounts. I assume this is done by keeping some older ones open to prop up the average, and by judiciously closing the churn accounts. Finally, if you choose to engage in churning, and you intend to apply for a large loan and want a good credit score, simply pause the account open/close part of the churn a couple of months ahead of time. Your score should recover from the temporary hits of the inquiries. The churning communities really do have how to guides which discuss the details of this. Key phrase: credit card churning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7cbcdb950e3d7d98704510e40c5d6cb",
"text": "Yes, as long as you are responsible with the payments and treat it as a cash substitute, and not a loan. I waited until I was 21 to apply for my first credit card, which gave me a later start to my credit history. That led to an embarrassing credit rejection when I went to buy some furniture after I graduated college. You'd think $700 split into three interest-free payments wouldn't be too big of a risk, but I was rejected since my credit history was only 4 months long, even though I had zero late payments. So I ended up paying cash for the furniture instead, but it was still a horrible feeling when the sales rep came back to me and quietly told me my credit application had been denied.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "798cff6a3a52fef325e5808244302d46",
"text": "Reading Great Lakes' page How Payments Are Applied, I think you are probably correct about how the payments are applied: Interest first, minimum on each loan next, then any extra is applied to the highest interest loan. If I were you, I would make one payment a month, and I would make that payment as large as I possibly could. Trying to make more than one payment in a month is too complicated (and you aren't sure exactly how those payments get credited), and saving up for a big payment every few months is pointless and will cost you interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "796d659bd696e4d858e82c00f4d4d961",
"text": "No, because of the balance transfer fees, which could be 4%. Unless of course you get a deal for 12 months of no payment, and you pay it back in 12 months, in which case a 4% annual interest rate is much less than a loan! At that point you are gambling that you will be responsible with the payments, and the card company is taking the opposite bet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d0741eee12de03a7beb55b8a9fe3b40",
"text": "Set up a meeting with the bank that handles your business checking account. Go there in person and bring your business statements: profit and loss, balance sheet, and a spreadsheet showing your historical cash flow. The goal is to get your banker to understand your business and your needs and also for you to be on a first-name basis with your banker for an ongoing business relationship. Tell them you want to establish credit and you want a credit card account with $x as the limit. Your banker might be able to help push your application through even with your credit history. Even if you can't get the limit you want, you'll be on your way and can meet again with your banker in 6 or 12 months. Once your credit is re-established you'll be able to shop around and apply for other rewards cards. One day you might want a line of credit or a business loan. Establishing a relationship with your banker ahead of time will make that process easier if and when the time comes. Continue to meet with him or her at least annually, and bring updated financial statements each time. If nothing else, this process will help you analyze your business, so the process itself is useful even if nothing comes of it immediately.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18127088510ed511e14029a376fff64e",
"text": "A) The Credit Rating Agencies only look at the month-end totals that are on your credit card, as this is all they ever get from the issuing bank. So a higher usage frequency as described would not make any direct difference to your credit rating. B) The issuing bank will know if you use the credit with the higher frequency, but it probably has little effect on your limit. Typically, after two to three month, they reevaluate your credit limit, and it could go up considerably if you never overdrew (and at this time, it could indirectly positively affect your credit rating). You could consider calling the issuing bank after two month and try to explain the history a bit and get them to increase the limit, but that only makes sense if your credit score has recovered. Your business paperwork could go a long way to convince someone, if you do so well now. C) If your credit rating is still bad, you need to find out why. It should have normalized to a medium range with the bad historic issues dropped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c23a1e24ab98e5bdc93c4eaa97a24cd2",
"text": "It may or may not be a good idea to borrow money from your family; there are many factors to consider here, not the least of which is what you would do if you got in serious financial trouble and couldn't make your scheduled payments on the loan. Would you arrange with them to sell the property ASAP? Or could they easily manage for a few months without your scheduled payments if it were necessary? A good rule of thumb that some people follow when lending to family is this: don't do it unless you're 100% OK with the possibility that they might not pay you back at all. That said, your question was about credit scores specifically. Having a mortgage and making on-time payments would factor into your score, but not significantly more heavily than having revolving credit (eg a credit card) and making on time payments, or having a car loan or installment loan and making on time payments. I bought my house in 2011, and after years of paying the mortgage on time my credit score hasn't changed at all. MyFico has a breakdown of factors affecting your credit score here: http://www.myfico.com/crediteducation/whatsinyourscore.aspx. The most significant are a history of on-time payments, low revolving credit utilization (carrying a $4900 balance on a card with a $5000 limit is bad, carrying a $10 balance on the same card is good), and overall length of your credit history. As to credit mix, they have this to say: Types of credit in use Credit mix determines 10% of my FICO Score The FICO® Score will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. It's not necessary to have one of each, and it's not a good idea to open credit accounts you don’t intend to use. The credit mix usually won’t be a key factor in determining your FICO Score—but it will be more important if your credit report does not have a lot of other information on which to base a score. Have credit cards – but manage them responsibly Having credit cards and installment loans with a good payment history will raise your FICO Score. People with no credit cards tend to be viewed as a higher risk than people who have managed credit cards responsibly.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
72cd8eaf92775ccad43222cbf4f1e5f2
|
Get car loan w/ part time job as student with no credit, no-cosigner but no expenses
|
[
{
"docid": "556dfadb5cf3e316cfebe3430444715d",
"text": "Instead of going to the dealership and not knowing if you will be able to get a loan or what the interest rate might be, go to a local credit union or bank first, before you go car shopping, and talk to them about what you would need for your loan. If you can get approval for a loan first, then you will know how much you can spend, and when it comes time for negotiation with the dealer, he won't be able to confuse you by changing the loan terms during the process. As far as the dealer is concerned, it would be a cash transaction. That having been said, I can't recommend taking a car loan. I, of course, don't know you or your situation, but there are lots of good reasons for buying a less expensive car and doing what you can to pay cash for it. Should you choose to go ahead with the loan, I would suggest that you get the shortest loan length that you can afford, and aim to pay it off early.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25165446ba66ac50fff2c85cdaff029d",
"text": "Ben already covered most of this in his answer, but I want to emphasize the most important part of getting a loan with limited credit history. Go into a credit union or community bank and talk to the loan officer there in person. Ask for recommendations on how much they would lend based on your income to get the best interest rate that they can offer. Sometimes shortening the length of the loan will get you a lower rate, sometimes it won't. (In any case, make sure you can pay it off quickly no matter the term that you sign with.) Each bank may have different policies. Talk to at least two of them even if the first one offers you terms that you like. Talking to a loan officer is valuable life experience, and if you discuss your goals directly with them, then they will be able to give you feedback about whether they think a small loan is worth their time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "54df40bf61e056d37576ccc99111fa4c",
"text": "So many answers here are missing the mark. I have a $100k mortgage--because that isn't paid off, I can't buy a car? That's really misguided logic. You have a reasonably large amount of college debt and didn't mention any other debt-- It's a really big deal what kind of debt this is. Is it unsecured debt through a private lender? Is it a federal loan from the Department of Education? Let's assume the worst possible (reasonable) situation. You lose your job and spend the next year plus looking for work. This is the boat numerous people out of college are in (far far far FAR more than the unemployment rates indicate). Federal loans have somewhat reasonable (indentured servitude, but I digress) repayment strategies; you can base the payment on your current income through income-based and income-continent repayment plans. If you're through a private lender, they still expect payment. In both cases--because the US hit students with ridiculous lending practices, your interest rates are likely 5-10% or even higher. Given your take-home income is quite large and I don't know exactly the cost of living where you live--you have to make some reasonable decisions. You can afford a car note for basically any car you want. What's the worst that happens if you can't afford the car? They take it back. If you can afford to feed yourself, house yourself, pay your other monthly bills...you make so much more than the median income in the US that I really don't see any issues. What you should do is write out all your monthly costs and figure out how much unallocated money you have, but I'd imagine you have enough money coming in to finance any reasonable new or used car. Keep in mind new will have much higher insurance and costs, but if you pick a good car your headaches besides that will be minimal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a5ebedc1fc73c4189e58ac6d0ede89",
"text": "There is no need to get an auto loan just to try and affect your credit score. It is possible to have a score over 800 without any sort of auto loan. If you can afford to pay for the vehicle up front that is the better option. Even with special financing incentives it is better to pay up front if you can. Yes it is possible to use the funds to make more if you finance with a silly low interest rate, however it's also possible to lose a job or have some other financial disaster happen and need that money for something else making it more difficult to make the payment. It may be just me but I find the peace of mind not having the payment to be worth a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11692d59ac54be45ba7425bb06463446",
"text": "The only reason to lend the money in this scenario is cashflow. But considering you buy a $15000 car, your lifestyle is not super luxurious, so $15000 spare cash is enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e68a7f16bbbafd367c5aa932c0fa551",
"text": "The short answer is that you can use student loans for living expenses. Joe provides a nice taxonomy of loans. I would just add that some loans are not only guaranteed, but also subsidized. Essentially the Government buys down the rate of the loan. The mechanics are that a financial aid package might consist of grants, work study (job), subsidized, and guaranteed loans. One can turn down one or more of the elements of the package. All will be limited in some form. The work study will have a maximum number of hours and generally has low pay. Many find better deals working in the businesses surrounding the college or starting their own services type business. The grants rarely cover the full cost of tuition and books. The loans will both be limited in amount. It mainly depends on what you qualify for, and generally speaking the lower the income the more aid one qualifies for. Now some students use all their grant, all their loan money and buy things that are not necessary. For example are you going to live in the $450/month dorm, or the new fancy apartments that are running $800/month? Are you going to use the student loan money to buy a car? Will it be a new BMW or a 8 year old Camary? I see this first hand as I live near a large university. The pubs are filled with college students, not working, but drinking and eating every night. Many of them drive very fancy cars. The most onerous example of this is students at the military academies. Attendees have their books and tuition completely paid for. They also receive a stipend, and more money can be earned over the summer. They also all qualify for a 35K student loan in their junior year. Just about every kid, takes this loan. Most of those use the money to buy a car. I know a young lady who did exactly that, and so did many of her friends. So kids with a starting pay of 45K also start life with a 35K. Buying a nice car in the military is especially silly as they cannot drive it while deployed and they are very likely to be deployed. At least, however, they are guaranteed a starting job with a nice starting pay, and upward potential. College kids who behave similarly might not have it as good. Will they even find work? Will the job have the ability to move up? How much security is in the job? One might say that this does not apply to engineers and such, but I am working with a fellow with a computer science degree who cannot find a job and has not worked in the past 6 months. This even though the market is super hot right now for computer engineers. So, in a word, be very careful what you borrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "879a2f9d08d157b5b6885499455c88a8",
"text": "Generally, banks will report your loan to at least one (if not all three) credit bureaus - although that is not required by law. The interest you're paying, in addition to your insurance isn't justifiable for building credit. I would recommend paying the car off and then perhaps applying for a secure credit card if you are worried about being rejected. Of course, since you have very little credit, applying for an unsecured card and getting rejected won't hurt you in the long run. If you are rejected, you can always go for a secured credit card the second time. As I mentioned in my comments, it's better to show 6 months of on-time payments than to have no payment history at all. So if your goal is to secure an apartment near campus, I'm sure you're already a step ahead of the other students.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ea20ce7f1895fe2a39306fe60eef5e3",
"text": "You have asked about getting a loan, the issue is that you don't have collateral to offer up in exchange for the loan, you also don't have a regular source of income. Getting a low level job, even one not related to your major will provide income. Getting a not-so-perfect job related to your major will allow your to sustain yourself, and provide experience that can help you find the perfect job. The time from application to interview to offer letter to start date can be measured in months. This is even with positions you are perfect for. Since it can take months to get started in a new job you should focus on something that you can get started right away. This type of job will have a shorter time frame for the interview cycle. You may feel overqualified for the jobs based on the fact you just graduated from college but this was the type of job you should have had to bridge you from school to the job you want. Regarding the end goal of getting the perfect job, you might have to refocus your efforts. When you had time and money you could afford to be picky about company, location and salary. Now that money is in short supply you will need to change your standards. Keep in mind it is not just an issue about being able to travel to job interviews, it is also about needing a way to afford food, and health insurance. Go back to your college campus and talk to the career counselors they can help your with your resume, and give job search advice. They may also have contacts that can help you find a position with a good local company or even a national company. They may even know of companies that need employees for just a few months to fill a need.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "032d7d2e8659102e57df1c6678760cea",
"text": "An auto title loans are typically utilized by those that wish to obtain a funding with bad credit rating or no credit in any way. An auto-mobile title lending frequently called a vehicle title lending or merely title funding as well as pink slip funding’s. You merely should have a vehicle that is paid off or nearly paid off and also you could make use of the auto title as security to obtain the cash money you require, enabling you to continue driving your vehicle while paying your loan. Get Auto Car Title Loans North Hollywood CA and nearby cities Provide Car Title Loans, Auto Title Loans, Mobile Home Title Loans, RV/Motor Home Title Loans, Big Rigs Truck Title Loans, Motor Cycle Title Loans, Online Title Loans Near me, Bad Credit Loans, Personal Loans, Quick cash Loans Contact Us: Get Auto Car Title Loans North Hollywood CA 11604 Sylvan St # 7, North Hollywood, CA 91606 424-343-2256 [email protected] http://getautotitleloans.com/car-and-auto-title-loans-north-hollywood-ca/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de45ba78caece33cee1171e59931e8ce",
"text": "maybe everyone who has responded needs to look closer at the income base repayment plan for student loans. What this means is he payment does not even cover his interest rate so each month he makes his payment the loan grows, does not decrease. This is not a simple interest loan which is irritating because car dealerships do not even use a non-simple interest loan any longer. So, well your suggestions are well intended what is your suggestion now knowing that his monthly payments is not reducing his loan but actually his loan is growing exponentially each month. I also like the comment where the average student loan is $30,000, I would like to know in what state that is. That may work for a community college or a student who is reliant on parents to supplement their income so they can go to classes, however for someone who is working and going to school that person must opt out for night classes and online classes which definitely increases the cost of your classes. Right now the cost per credit hour is in the $550- 585 range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d280f9654cc7e6f9132494b19bc1d4f",
"text": "Not long after college in my new job I bought a used car with payments, I have never done that since. I just don't like having a car payment. I have bought every car since then with cash. You should never borrow money to buy a car There are several things that come into play when buying a car. When you are shopping with cash you tend to be more conservative with your purchases look at this Study on Credit card purchases. A Dunn & Bradstreet study found that people spend 12-18% more when using credit cards than when using cash. And McDonald's found that the average transaction rose from $4.50 to $7.00 when customers used plastic instead of cash. I would bet you if you had $27,000 dollars cash in your hand you wouldn't buy that car. You'd find a better deal, and or a cheaper car. When you finance it, it just doesn't seem to hurt as bad. Even though it's worse because now you are paying interest. A new car is just insanity unless you have a high net worth, at least seven figures. Your $27,000 car in 5 years will be worth about $6500. That's like striking a match to $340 dollars a month, you can't afford to lose that much money. Pay Cash If you lose your job, get hurt, or any number of things that can cost you money or reduce your income, it's no problem with a paid for car. They don't repo paid for cars. You have so much more flexibility when you don't have payments. You mention you have 10k in cash, and a $2000 a month positive cash flow. I would find a deal on a 8000 - 9000 car I would not buy from a dealer*. Sell the car you have put that money with the positive cash flow and every other dime you can get at your student loans and any other debt you have, keep renting cheap keep the college lifestyle (broke) until you are completely out of debt. Then I would save for a house. Finally I would read this Dave Ramsey book, if I would have read this at your age, I would literally be a millionaire by now, I'm 37. *Don't buy from a dealer Find a private sale car that you can get a deal on, pay less than Kelly Blue Book. Pay a little money $50 - 75 to have an automotive technician to check it out for you and get a car fax, to make sure there are no major problems. I have worked in the automotive industry for 20 + years and you rarely get a good deal from a dealer. “Everything popular is wrong.” Oscar Wilde",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be2d7fa01fe5a2e48f5e6a4a268f77ab",
"text": "\"You are co-signer on his car loan. You have no ownership (unless the car is titled in both names). One option (not the best, see below) is to buy the car from him. Arrange your own financing (take over his loan or get a loan of your own to pay him for the car). The bank(s) will help you take care of getting the title into your name. And the bank holding the note will hold the title as well. Best advice is to get with him, sell the car. Take any money left after paying off the loan and use it to buy (cash purchase, not finance) a reliable, efficient, used car -- if you truly need a car at all. If you can get to work by walking, bicycling or public transit, you can save thousands per year, and perhaps use that money to start you down the road to \"\"financial independence\"\". Take a couple of hours and research this. In the US, we tend to view cars as necessary, but this is not always true. (Actually, it's true less than half the time.) Even if you cannot, or choose not to, live within bicycle distance of work, you can still reduce your commuting cost by not financing, and by driving a fuel efficient vehicle. Ask yourself, \"\"Would you give up your expensive vehicle if it meant retiring years earlier?\"\" Maybe as many as ten years earlier.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c04766bd3dd7726caf75ff1eeab53a63",
"text": "\"Your use of the term \"\"loan\"\" is confusing, what you're proposing is to open a new card and take advantage of the 0% APR by carrying a balance. The effects to your credit history / score will be the following:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0f27d3d497769d2b2fda5a0d8869bff",
"text": "If you have no credit history but you have a job, buying an inexpensive used car should still be doable with only a marginally higher interest rate on the car. This can be offset with a cosigner, but it probably isn't that big of a deal if you purchase a car that you can pay off in under a year. The cost of insurance for a car is affected by your credit score in many locations, so regardless you should also consider selling your other car rather than maintaining and insuring it while it's not your primary mode of transportation. The main thing to consider is that the terms of the credit will not be advantageous, so you should pay the full balance on any credit cards each month to not incur high interest expenses. A credit card through a credit union is advantageous because you can often negotiate a lower rate after you've established the credit with them for a while (instead of closing the card and opening a new credit card account with a lower rate--this impacts your credit score negatively because the average age of open accounts is a significant part of the score. This advice is about the same except that it will take longer for negative marks like missed payments to be removed from your report, so expect 7 years to fully recover from the bad credit. Again, minimizing how long you have money borrowed for will be the biggest benefit. A note about cosigners: we discourage people from cosigning on other people's loans. It can turn out badly and hurt a relationship. If someone takes that risk and cosigns for you, make every payment on time and show them you appreciate what they have done for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "63792b296af0765c2debb64c8e9bc54d",
"text": "A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4874af977160f3a38caa439a8163e5d8",
"text": "The only time it makes sense to take out a loan is: The drawbacks of these 2 points are: Otherwise it's better to pay for the car up front. You have not mentioned whether you need the car to earn income. A car will incur other costs such as insurance and maintenance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
90110cf40ce33673040127b523b2385d
|
What do I need to consider when refinancing one home to pay the down-payment of another?
|
[
{
"docid": "111c9c2ea2d0a7d3f61b4dbcf20c7cf3",
"text": "What kind of financial analysis would make you comfortable about this decision? The HELOC and ARM are the biggest red flags to me in your current situation. While I don't expect interest rates to skyrocket in the near future, they introduce an interest rate risk that is easy to get rid of. Getting rid of the HELOC and converting to a fixed mortgage would be my first priority. If you also want to upgrade to a new home at the same time (meaning buy a new home contingent on the sale of your first, paying off the HELOC and mortgage), that's fine, but make sure that you can comfortably afford the payment on a fixed-rate mortgage with at least 20% down. I would not take additional cash out of your equity just to save it. You're going to pay more in interest that you're going to get in savings. From there things get trickier. While many people would keep the first property on a mortgage and rent it out, I am not willing to be a landlord for a part-time job, especially when the interest on the mortgage gouges my return on the rent. PLus leverage increases the risks as well - all it takes is to go one or two months without rent and you can find yourself unable to make a mortgage payment, wrecking your credit and possibly risking foreclosure. So my options in order of precedence would be: At what point does it make sense to become a landlord? The complicated answer is when the benefits (rent, appreciation) relative to the costs (maintenance, interest, taxes, etc.) and risks (lost rent, bad renters, home value variance) give you a better return that you could find in investments of similar risk. The simple answer is when you can pay cash for it. That takes interest and lost rent out of the equation. Again, some are willing to take those risks and pay 20% down on rental property. Some are able to make it work. Some of those go broke or lose their properties. when calculating the 20% down of a new property, does that need to be liquid funds, or can that be based on the value of the home you are selling You can make the purchase of the new home contingent on the sale of the first if you need to get the equity out of it to make the 20%. Do NOT refinance the first just to pull out the equity to make a down payment. It's not worth the fees of a refinance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c9fa6e0083a4b1e77d2cf50c48f93da",
"text": "and I need to upgrade my current home to a larger, longer-term property Would selling your current home give you (at least) a 20% DP on the new home? Take additional cash out of the refinance of the first home to accelerate saving Dittoing D Stanley, that makes no sense. Purchase and move to a second property of greater cost and value to first You'll need to find the new house at the same time you're selling the existing home, and write the new-home purchase contract in such a way that you can back out in case the purchaser of your home backs out.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bc29100c3e89b4db2e5cfe70a2a70094",
"text": "The loan you will just have to get by applying to a bunch of banks or hiring someone (a broker) to line up bank financing on your behalf for a point on the loan. FHA is for your first house that you live in and allows you to get 97.5% loan to cost financing. That isn't for investment properties. However, FHA loans do exist for multifamily properties under section 207/223F. Your corporations should be SPEs so they don't affect each other. In the end, its up to you if you think it makes sense for all the single family homes to be in one portfolio. May make it easier to refi if you put all the properties in a cross collateralized pool for the bank to lend against. There is also no requirement for how long a corporation has been in existence for a loan. The loan has a claim on the property so it's pretty safe. So long as you haven't committed fraud before, they won't care about credit history.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9360d30fe1116cbfbd238ffdb702853f",
"text": "\"When you refinance, there is cost (guess: around $2000-$3000) to cover lawyers, paperwork, surveys, deed insurance, etc. etc. etc. Someone has to pay that cost, and in the end it will be you. Even if you get a \"\"no points no cost\"\" loan, the cost is going to be hidden in the interest rate. That's the way transactions with knowledgeable companies works: they do business because they benefit (profit) from it. The expectation is that what they need is different from what you need, so that each of you benefits. But, when it's a primarily cash transaction, you can't both end up with more money. So, unless value will be created somewhere else from the process (and don't include the +cash, because that ends up tacked onto the principle), this seems like paying for financial entertainment, and there are better ways to do that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17b2928bee6da11bfcbf89b118b27938",
"text": "I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow. Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time. It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value. Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off. Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value. And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00155b67fc1e919484a70eadd7488566",
"text": "It would help if we had numbers to walk you through the analysis. Current balance, rate, remaining term, and the new mortgage details. To echo and elaborate on part of Ben's response, the most important thing is to not confuse cash flow with savings. If you have 15 years to go, and refinance to 30 years, at the rate rate, your payment drops by 1/3. Yet your rate is identical in this example. The correct method is to take the new rate, plug it into a mortgage calculator or spreadsheet using the remaining months on the current mortgage, and see the change in payment. This savings is what you should divide into closing costs to calculate the breakeven. It's up to you whether to adjust your payments to keep the term the same after you close. With respect to keshlam, rules of thumb often fail. There are mortgages that build the closing costs into the rate. Not the amount loaned, the rate. This means that as rates dropped, moving from 5.25% to 5% made sense even though with closing costs there were 4.5% mortgages out there. Because rates were still falling, and I finally moved to a 3.5% loan. At the time I was serial refinancing, the bank said I could return to them after a year if rates were still lower. In my opinion, we are at a bottom, and the biggest question you need to answer is whether you'll remain in the house past your own breakeven time. Last - with personal finance focusing on personal, the analysis shouldn't ignore the rest of your balance sheet. Say you are paying $1500/mo with 15 years to go. Your budget is tight enough that you've chosen not to deposit to your 401(k). (assuming you are in the US or country with pretax retirement account options) In this case, holding rates constant, a shift to 30 years frees up about $500/mo. In a matched 401(k), your $6000/yr is doubled to $12K/year. Of course, if the money would just go in the market unmatched, members here would correctly admonish me for suggesting a dangerous game, in effect borrowing via mortgage to invest in the market. The matched funds, however are tough to argue against.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1ae3cb543558e6c150f706998416094c",
"text": "You want to buy a house for $150,000. It may be possible to do this with $10,000 and a 3.5% downpayment, but it would be a lot better to have $40,000 and make a 20% downpayment. That would give you a cushion in case house prices fall, and there are often advantages to a 20% downpayment (lower rate; less mandatory insurance). You have an income of $35,000 and expenses of $23,000 (if you are careful with the money--what if you aren't?). You should have savings of either $17,500 or $11,500 in case of emergencies. Perhaps you simply weren't mentioning that. Note that you also need at least $137 * 26 = $3562 more to cover mortgage payments, so $15,062 by the expenses standard. This is in addition to the $40,000 for downpayment and closing costs. What do you plan to do if there is a problem with the new house, e.g. you need a new roof? Or smaller expenses like a new furnace or appliance? A plumbing problem? Damages from a storm? What if the tenants' teenage child has a party and trashes the place? What if your tenants stop paying rent but refuse to move out, trashing the place while being evicted? Your emergency savings need to be able to cover those situations. You checked comps (comparable properties). Great! But notice that you are looking at a one bathroom property for $150,000 and comparing to $180,000 houses. Consider that you may not get the $235 for that house, which is cheaper. Perhaps the rent for that house will only be $195 or less, because one bathroom doesn't really support three bedrooms of people. While real estate can be part of a portfolio, balance would suggest that much more of your portfolio be in things like stocks and bonds. What are you doing for retirement? Are you maxing out any tax-advantaged options that you have available? It might be better to do that before entering the real estate market. I am a 23 year old Australian man with a degree in computer science and a steady job from home working as a web developer. I'm a bit unclear on this. What makes the job steady? Is it employment with a large company? Are you self-employed with what has been a steady flow of customers? Regardless of which it is, consider the possibility of a recession. The company can lay you off (presumably you are at the bottom of the seniority). The new customers may be reluctant to start new projects while their cash flow is restrained. And your tenants may move out. At the same time. What will you do then? A mortgage is an obligation. You have to pay it regardless. While currently flush, are you the kind of flush that can weather a major setback? I would feel a lot better about an investment like this if you had $600,000 in savings and were using this as a complementary investment to broaden your portfolio. Even if you had $60,000 in savings and would still have substantial savings after the purchase. This feels more like you are trying to maximize your purchase. Money burning a hole in your pocket and trying to escape. It would be a lot safer to stick to securities. The worst that happens there is that you lose your investment (and it's more likely that the value will be reduced but recover). With mortgages, you can lose your entire investment and then some. Yes, the price may recover, but it may do so after the bank forecloses on the mortgage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e10a4dfb31de792f3ecfc627dbd59991",
"text": "Let me give you the benefit of my experience. I paid a bunch of points (4) when I bought my first house for similar reasons than you mentioned including: Why I wish I hadn't: (1) Interest rates plummeted (not as likely to happen today) and I wound up refinancing the loan within the fist 10 years negating the savings that I would have had over the life of the loan. Also, it made me feel stupid for paying close to $5K to knock 1% or so off the loan rate only to have an even lower rate offered to me with no points within a decade. (2) I didn't take into account that I'm the type of person who would try to pay the loan off early, and I did. Way Early. So even if I hadn't refinanced, the extra points were really a waste of money. (3) In the US, at least, you can't always deduct ALL of the money you paid in points in the first year. You may have to spread that deduction over several years. (4) You are right about the alternative being better (investing the points), since the benefit of paying them is at most 1-2% on your loan, you don't even need a 6-7% return to make it a better deal to invest them. HOWEVER, I get skeptical when people compare paying interest to returns on invested money like that. If you don't pay the points will you actually invest that money for the 30 years (or whatever the term of the loan is)? It's easy to say that when you are talking theoreticals, but $5k in your pocket is also pretty tempting when the deal is done. Good luck with the new house!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcbcbebeb0e6fc63a5f9ab0ae5e4448e",
"text": "\"Your question isn't great, but I will attempt to answer this piece as it seems really the root of your personal finance question: I want to convince my wife to make this move because it will save us at least 800 month, but she fails to see how buying a second home is financially sound because we have to lose our savings and we have to pay interest on our second home. And... Her logic is it will take almost 5 years to get back our down payment and we have to pay interest as well. So how can this move help our family financially in the long run? ... Is she right? She is mostly wrong. First, consider that there is no \"\"ROI\"\" really on your down payment. Assuming you are paying what your home would sell for the next day, then your \"\"RIO\"\" is already yours (minus realtor fees). She is talking about cash on hand, not ROI. I will use an example without taking into account risk of home markets going down or other risks to ownership. Example: Let's say you pay $2800 a month in mortgage interest+principle at 5.5% apr and $200 a month in taxes+insurance on a $360k loan ($400k house). In this example let's say the same house if you were to rent it is $3800 a month. Understand the Opportunity Cost of renting (the marginal amount it costs you to NOT buy). So far, your opportunity cost is $800 a month. The principle of your house will be increasing with each payment. In our example, it's about $400 for the first payment, and will increase with each payment made while decreasing the interest payment (Suggest you look at an amortization table for your specific mortgage example). So, you're real number is now $1200 a month opportunity cost. Consider also the fact that the $400 a month is sitting in a savings account of sorts. While most savings accounts give you less than 1% in returns and then charge taxes on that gain, your home may (or may not be) much higher than that and won't charge you taxes on the gains when you sell it (If you live in it for a period of time as defined by the IRS.) Let's assume a conservative long term appreciation rate of 3%. That's $12k a year on a $400k house. So, now you're at $2200 a month opportunity cost. In this example I didn't touch on your tax savings of ownership. I also didn't touch on the maintenance cost of ownership or the maintenance cost of renting (your deposit + other fees) which all should be considered. You may have other costs involved in renting. For instance: The cost of not being able to fully utilize your rental as your own house. This may be an even simpler and more convincing way to explain it: On the $2800 mortgage example, you will be paying around $19k in interest and $2400 on taxes, insurance = $23k per year (number could be way different in your example). That is basically throw away money you're never getting back. On the rental, 100% of your rent at $3800 a month is throw away money you're never getting back. That's $45,600 a year.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8166c54b8bbc1309d05cdb9d94a18589",
"text": "There may be a third option. The bank gives you the first mortgage of 80%, and a second, maybe a HELOC, for that missing 5%. This way, you get the lower rate and the money they'd charge you for PMI goes to paying down the second loan. Alternately, do you have any other sources to tap to bridge this small gap? A 401(k) loan perhaps? The rate willbe low, and for home purchase, a 10 yr payback. If these aren't viable options, I agree that taking the PMI route while tracking the balance is the way to go.",
"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": "a93375dd629bb7b0f7fcb45086cbc5e3",
"text": "You can't transfer mortgages when you purchase a new property. You can purchase a new property now, or you can refinance your current property now and leverage yourself as far as possible while rates are low. The higher rates you are worried about may not be as bad as you think. With higher interest rates, that may put downward pressure on housing prices, or when rates do rise, it may simply move from historic lows to relative lows. I had a mortgage at 4.25% that I never bothered refinancing even though rates went much lower because the savings in interest paid (minus my tax deduction for mortgage interest) didn't amount to more than the cost of refinancing. If rates go back up to 5%, that will still be very affordable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3d4b96522bea88e0bdae412d40b18e",
"text": "\"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a \"\"hot\"\" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "201f87f4854f907f755107b5e157a8f2",
"text": "The big one is to keep you from refinancing it with someone else to get a better rate. There may also be some funny-money reasons having to do with being able to count this as a new sale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b22c2489d586e3c1cfc01bb3f21219c3",
"text": "If you intend to flip this property, you might consider either a construction loan or private money. A construction loan allows you to borrow from a bank against the value of the finished house a little at a time. As each stage of the construction/repairs are completed, the bank releases more funds to you. Interest accrues during the construction, but no payments need to be made until the construction/repairs are complete. Private money works in a similar manner, but the full amount can be released to you at once so you can get the repairs done more quickly. The interest rate will be higher. If you are flipping, then this higher interest rate is simply a cost of doing business. Since it's a private loan, you ca structure the deal any way you want. Perhaps accruing interest until the property is sold and then paying it back as a single balloon payment on sale of the property. To find private money, contact a mortgage broker and tell them what you have in mind. If you're intending to keep the property for yourself, private money is still an option. Once the repairs are complete, have the bank reassess the property value and refinance based on the new amount. Pay back the private loan with equity pulled from the house and all the shiny new repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dfd8f9551cb41ca84b421e899594d2c",
"text": "Our mortgage provider actually took the initiative to send us a refinance package with no closing costs to us and nothing added to the note; took us from a 30-year-fixed ~6.5% note to a 15-year-fixed ~5% note, and dropped the monthly payment in the process. You might talk to your existing lender to see if they would do something like that for you; it gives them a chance to keep your business, and it cuts your costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efe97e6621d553372ebcd8bf44055423",
"text": "There's no objectively correct answer to this question, given your circumstances. Ideally, the stepmom would put in 60% of the downpayment and 60% of the monthly maintenance costs and mortgage. You and your partner would evenly split the 40%. Then, it is very obvious. However, my guess is that this isn't going to be the situation. Without knowing the numbers, I suggest that, upon sale of the house, the exact value of each person's downpayment is immediately returned without interest. What's left of the equity is returned to everyone as per the amount they paid in mortgage. The monthly maintenance costs are excluded from this calculation entirely. You are, of course, free to take any other approach all three of you deem to be fair. In my example, consider a home that costs $200,000. Your stepmom puts in $40,000 for a downpayment, you put in $10,000, and your parter puts in $10,000. The mortgage payments are $1500/month. Your stepmom puts in $500 a month, you put in $250 a month, and your partner puts in $750 a month. You sell the place for $300,000 after paying off the entire mortgage. Your stepmom gets $40,000 + $80,000. You get $10,000 + $40,000. Your partner gets $10,000 + $120,000. Keep in mind, though, that you may have to sell the house for a loss. In which case, some or all of the downpayment may not even be returned. In fact, you may end up having to cover money over and above the downpayment and the payments you've made. Any good lawyer will make you consider this. Additionally, any good lawyer will make you spell out under what circumstances, people can force sale of the home.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4a8d339748f64cbb17677bec2791d61f
|
Is it better to pay an insurance deductible, or get an upgrade?
|
[
{
"docid": "34d032c83a1c6e8f463549cfcaa8ae42",
"text": "\"You asked for simple, and I promise you this is... it just looks a bit math-heavy to start with because we have to handle a couple of different scenarios. Bear with me :) I find the best way to deal with these kinds of questions is to put together a \"\"Total cost\"\" for each option, for a sensible amount of time, and see what the difference is. We'll include the current cost for both options, plus the subsequent costs for 12 months: I find that more useful than a straight \"\"which is more expensive right now\"\" because it includes the potential costs of the next upgrade, and any changes to the plan. Let's throw some numbers together for the next 12 months (if your current plan is longer than 12 months, read the note at the bottom first) First, write down the cost of these things **The above assume that you have two options if you take the repair option (and only one option if you use the buy-out option). The two options we're assuming here are that you can either: If you'd choose the same new plan regardless of whether you take the $100 or $150 option, there's no need to include both options: to simplify things you can just use the same numbers for both b/c and Pu/Py and the calculation below will still work. When you've found and written down the above, just do the sums below to find your two total costs over 12 months. Nothing fancy, just plug the numbers above into the equation. eg if Pe (eBay value of the phone) is $80, replace Pe with 80. Don't forget to do the parts in brackets first! That's your total cost for both options for the next year. Note: I'm assuming that your plan ends within the next 12 months. If not, just replace 12 in the above calculations with another term! You can also do this if you want to find out the price difference over a longer period (noting that if you upgrade to the same plan regardless of choice, you'll get the same answer for any period longer than your current contract)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75307c27c9cd02d8677bfa1ee368a65c",
"text": "If you repair your phone, when your current balance is paid off, could you get the same coverage for less money? Or would your monthly payment remain the same regardless? That would be the easiest comparison to make. ie: Pay an extra $49 to have the phone replaced [ie: the cost of using the insurance program for $149, vs the cost of buying out your plan for $100], get a slightly worse phone instead of upgrading, but save $15 / month for the next 2 years. This would pay off economically within 3-4 months, but the phone would be older (not sure if you care about that).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "90eb9324b716ae1e9857ceb774318da6",
"text": "I would go for the upgrade and cancel the insurance. It's been 5 years since I left the post paid subsidized phone world and I'm WAY better off. I use ATT GoPhone and I buy my phones in cash. If I shatter my phone, I replace the screen or simply buy a new one. Sites like swappa.com make buying and selling phones a breeze and you save a bundle of money leaving the carrier subsidies and ridiculous insurance programs on the table.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15306e410ed4dd6d32d3530ba0140c24",
"text": "\"I think you have a few choices that cannot be described by math alone: Repair current phone: 149 Replace current phone with new model from carrier: 100 + cost of new phone Replace current phone with new model on payment plan from carrier: 100 + cost of new phone + finance charge (could be zero or cleverly hidden). You can also replace the current phone with either a used or new bought from a separate party. Quite recently I was selling some gently used IPhones 4S for around $140. So really you have to determine what is most important to you guys. Is it important to have the newest model phone with laying out the least amount of cash now? Then by all means go with the payment plan with your current carrier. Is it most important to be financially efficient, while having a good working phone? Then pay the deductible; or buy something gently used. In my opinion, having a phone payment is a losing game, akin to buying a new car every three years or so. You are buying something on time that quickly depreciates and hiding the true cost of the item in \"\"painless\"\" monthly payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f747a935f3921798bc60557a0ab20cfd",
"text": "I'm going to guess you're on Verizon and your wife has an iPhone. I just went through this exact same situation with my mom's phone last week. When you're off contract with Verizon you're saving $25/month on your plan (at least, I am), so staying off contract is big. If you do the monthly payment you're paying full retail over 2 years, without interest, so you do stay off contract at least. Here's the thing, as long as it's a 16GB iPhone 5 or better, you're going to be able to Craigslist it for the cost of the deductible, no problems. To me that makes the decision pretty easy to make. As long as you can Craigslist it for more than the deductible, get the insurance replacement. Then when you want a new phone you can sell your old one. Since you can sell the phone, I think that makes the comparison between the deductible and deciding to pay off the $100 now and start payments on the new phone less relevant. The real comparison I'd suggest looking at is the value of the phone and the deductible.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "69db43cc647239fed2015435995c4715",
"text": "I edited in the total annual out of pocket for each level to help illustrate what's going on. Your question makes sense, of course, but it's less a matter of afford vs an attempt to save. The way these plans work is to allow some choice based on your past experience. I can afford any option, but knowing the number of visits we have had in the past, the lowest cost option has the highest premium. A young couple who hardly sees a doctor may choose the highest deductible, risking the potential $3434 extra they may pay in a bad year for the savings of $1016. Personally, I'd not be able to guess accurately enough to benefit from the middle choices, and can see the two extremes being picked most often.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "18b79cd0bd218a253049cfab75afeb3a",
"text": "There is an opportunity cost of your future insurance needs, Here, the savings vs risks ratio is difficult to figure out. Hence it is always worth that extra cost to buy the larger and longer policy if you can afford it. Basically if you can afford it today, it will cost peanuts after 20 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b0fb5cba058c456c114ffc9ce3f7ea1",
"text": "\"You have several issues at work. If in the next few years you have a leak in the roof that causes another insurance claim, they may decide not to cover it because they already paid you to replace the roof, and it is your fault that it wasn't. That might also mean they don't pay you for the stuff that is damaged because of the \"\"new\"\" leak. If you minimize the claim that may make it less likely that they will drop you in the future, or increase you rate next year. But if you don't return the excess funds they will evaluate you on the larger claim size. Of course if they are sending the money directly to the repair company they will only pay the bill up to a maximum amount. Usually the issue has been that the repair company wants to do a larger repair. The dispute resolves around some aspect of the building code. I had a car repair that had to be increased because the roof damage was within x inches of the windshield, so the windshield had to be replaced. The insurance company eventually agreed but it slowed down the process for a couple of days because they wanted to measure it. It is possible that the insurance company has rules related to the age of the roof and the amount of damage that triggers a total replacement.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5be55b3e5c91e876243c064a7e5e1d0a",
"text": "\"Based on the updated information \"\"I'm able to get my health insurance in full from my old job which is why still have it(ABC). Anthem Blue cross only costs me about 15 dollars a month. At my new job I work full time so I took up the healthcare because eventually I will more than likely get rid of my old one(or loose it).\"\" There are a couple of issues: The old company will no longer be paying for the ABC policy, you will have to cover the entire cost. The cost could be significantly m ore than $15 a month. One will be primary and one will be secondary. You will have to tell them about each other. How they will interact when one is a percentage and the other a copay will have to be investigated. Look back at all your procedures from last year, and ask how they would cover them. You will also need to see if your doctors and specialists are in both networks. This could create situations where the 2nd policy provides no coverage because you went out of their network. You could also require multiple referrals.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7fe4f6a428b10d9af4eac146034bde4",
"text": "Generically, like farnsy noted in the other answer, you will only come ahead in dollar terms when you are significantly riskier than the average insuree. Otherwise the insurance company would have higher rates to make a profit. In the case of Apple Care there can arguably be other factors involved. If you did not insure your $2000 laptop and it broke (unfixably) just after the warranty period, would you replace it with a new Apple product? Maybe not, so Apple could lose a customer. That means they have an incentive to keep you happy. If your product breaks but insurance replaces it, you are a happier customer and more likely to buy other Apple products. This is not an incentive for traditional insurance companies that only do business in insurance. Now, with the profit margins Apple likes in general, I don't know if they've underpriced their insurance. I sort of doubt it even. But their margins on it are probably not high, meaning it's a closer call even if you are only averagely risky.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a35b175690c940360d70d28fe2c429c7",
"text": "The odds could very well be in your favor, even when the insurance company expects profit. What matters to you is not the expected amount of money you'll have, but the expected amount of utility you'll get from it: getting enough money to buy food to eat is much more important than getting enough money to be able to buy that fiction book too. The more money you have, the less a dollar is worth to you: consequently, if you have enough money, it's worth spending some to prevent yourself from getting into a situation where you don't have enough money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcc99ce53784564e60c8529112455a1e",
"text": "You seem overly fixated on dead tree documentation of purchases. They are deducting this from your account monthly - the mere fact that the money was taken is enough to prove in court that they have you on their books and to hold them to paying out said insurance. The email copies is actually a better way to organize receipts in most cases (can't be destroyed as easily, etc.) You can cancel the insurance - but don't just stop paying (you'd owe them money then). I foresee increasing difficulty navigating the 21st century for you unless you can get past this concern about physical receipts. I doubt other companies would do much better. FWIW, I live in the continental US. I don't know how different the Philippines is with regard to moving everything to digital",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "403294d631b330a34ef94f13a824f49d",
"text": "\"My knee-jerk reaction was \"\"no, they are not worth it\"\", but I took a little time to look up what some of the trusted names in consumer electronics reviews had to say about extended warranties/service contracts. A cnet writer said that your decision should consider the price of the service contract relative to the price of the item you're buying, as well as the amount of hassle you're willing to endure, should something go wrong. Consumer Reports believes that the warranties that come with your products are almost always enough, and they say that electronics and appliances are so well-built nowadays, the likelihood of you needing extra service before you upgrade are slim-to-none. And the folks over at epinions.com offer the same maybe-yes-maybe-no advice as the cnet guys: depends on your appetite for risk and the options available to you. So I would suggest that the answer be \"\"no\"\" most of the time, but consider it anyway.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f4bc315f09f7f8e774ac7636da8583a",
"text": "\"One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (\"\"premium\"\") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bfe6baf0c8053dd25f2f4ba19e01794f",
"text": "The point of insurance is to trade high variable costs for much lower fixed costs. The question isn't whether you can afford what would be a catastrophic event for anyone else, but whether it would be better to pay a small amount regularly vs. a possibly larger amount occasionally. One of the reasons to buy insurance is to avoid costly litigation (rich people are more frequently targeted for litigation). By purchasing liability insurance, the insurance company pays for the litigation and/or settlement. If you are wealthy enough to keep an experienced litigation firm on retainer, you may not need that benefit, but it might be worth giving that stress to a third party. Life insurance is also an important part of estate planning because of the tax treatment of insurance payouts compared to the tax treatment of a large estate. There are certainly classes of insurance that make less sense for those with great cash flow, but money doesn't obviate all the benefits of insurance.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c3541c1e7024310c487cfd522ce06a5",
"text": "I would go with option B. That is safer, as it would leave you with more options, in case of an unexpected job loss or an emergency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a247b8eb4005d4a1e4020639dfc5bfa",
"text": "\"While a lot of the answers focus on cost to replace and how much money you should have for tangible goods. There are a few more issues to consider. However before we get started, these issues are not related to ones net worth. They are related to other factors. Having money certainly helps, but someone worth only $10 may not need to insure their stuff under some circumstances. Insurance is a risk avoidance strategy. As such, it should be used to avoid risks that would otherwise cause issues for you. The normal example is a house. If you lost your house due to fire, would you be able to \"\"make it\"\" while you paid the mortgage off, and got a new mortgage to pay for a new house? This is a relatively simple view, but a good one. These days people tend to look at insurance as a savings account. I payed in X so I am entitled to Y. Heath insurance (a bit more on this later) is exacerbating the issue by selling it's self that way, but it simply isn't true. What your paying the premium for to avoid the risk of loss. Not so you can have a pool of money to draw from in time of need, but so that a time of need should never arise. Which brings us back to, should you get insurance? Tangible Assets Let's assume you have no legal or contractual obligation to have insurance. If you put the money you were spending aside would you have enough money to secure a new asset should your current one just vanish? This is the normal argument. But it has a second side. Do you need the asset at all, or can you just accept the loss. Lets pick on a red neck for a second. While certainly not millionaires, or \"\"well off\"\" by conventional means, the guy with 6 cars on bricks in his lawn does not need to insure 6 cars. If one were to vanish, it may make a hardship but hey, he's got 5 more. So with tangible goods it's more of a question of can you afford to replace the item, do you need to replace the item, and how big a risk is it to you to loose the item? What would you rather loose, the item, or the cost of the insurance? Non-tangible Assets I am going to try to keep this as un-rant like as I can manage, but be aware that I am biased. There are two big examples of non-tangible assets that are commonly insured. Life Insurance, and Health insurance. There are others, but it's very hard to get people to pay money to insure something that they don't actually have. Ideas can be insured, for example, but in order to insure an idea you have to spell it out, at that point why not just file for the patent etc. etc. Keep in mind that a lot of people and companies will insure against losses due to IP theft or other such intangible things. Largely these follow the same rules as tangible assets. This section is meant to focus on those insurances that do not. Life Insurance Life insurance is a bit odd. Were all going to die, so it seems like a \"\"good bet\"\" but what your insuring against with life insurance is an early death. For term life insurance it's a gamble. Will you die before your term runs out. For full life insurance (with no term) it's a different gamble. Will you die before you have paid in what they agreed to pay out. In many cases it's also a gamble that you will miss a payment or two and cancel the policy before you die. If the risk of your death worth the insurance. Usually while young the answer is yes. Do you leave your Family short one earner? Will they make it without the insurance? But as you get older, as life insurance becomes more of a sure thing it also becomes less needed. Your kids move out, there not dependent on you any more. You have retirement accounts setup so your partner need not worry should something happen. What risk exactly are your trying to avoid at this point. You will die. You have planned for that eventuality, it's not a risk anymore, it's a fact. Heath Insurance Is another beast all together. Historically you insured against some catastrophic event, that you couldn't really plan for. Say a heart attack. Surgery and treatment would run in the tens of thousands, so it would ruin you if you didn't have insurance to cover that. That was the risk that you were avoiding. A big, expensive event, causing financial ruin. However, over time it has shifted into something else. The general concept is still there, insure to avoid a risk. But the \"\"risk\"\" has been widened to include all manor of things that are not actually risks. For example a flu. You would go to your doctor, pay your co-pay, and your insurance would pay the rest of the visit. Then you would go to the drug store and get the drugs, pay your co-pay and the insurance pays the rest. But what risk, in this instance are you insuring against? That you can't cover the cost of a doctors visit? That you can't cover the cost of the medication? In this example, a common one, historically the \"\"mother of the house\"\" would go you have a flu, have some chicken noodle soup and go to bed. That would be the end of it. Cost of care is a day's lost wages (or maybe a weeks) and a few cans of soup. However today, because we choose to, the cost of care is much higher. We go to the doctor, pay our co-pays, the insurance has to pay it's part. The doctors office has to carry the cost of the staff it takes to see you, and the staff it takes to handle the claims with the insurance company. And now your flu, cost $1,500. But again that's not exactly true either. With heath insurance and \"\"normal\"\" medical care (like sprained ankles, and colds, etc.) the insurance only really covers the cost of having insurance. In that same flu example, if you went to the doctor as a \"\"self pay\"\" (no insurance) you would often time get a much lower, and reasonable rate. Frequently, under the cost of your standard co-pay. This seems like the doctors being \"\"bad\"\" but it's not. They don't have to file a claim, they don't have to keep track of it. They get immediate payment, not payment 6 months down the line that they need to share with other businesses. With \"\"critical\"\" or \"\"catastrophic\"\" care, heath insurance is still a good thing. If you have a big, unforeseen event, then heath insurance is great at helping you avoid that risk. With chronic (long term) care, your back in the same boat as the flu. Often times you can get better, and cheaper, care as a self pay patent, then as a insured patent. That is not always the case however. So you have to measure your own circumstance, and decide if insurance is right for you. But remember insurance is about risk avoidance, and not about paying less. You will ALWAYS pay more for insurance. It's designed that way. Even if the cost is hidden in many ways. (Taxes, spread out over visits, or prescriptions, etc.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c531e72f8977fc24c624a99cc206fe5c",
"text": "On most of the consumer electronics it would not make much sense to get Insurance. Mostly these are not priced right [are typically priced higher]. IE there is no study to arrive at equivalent claim rates as in motor vehicle. Further on most of the items there is adequate manufacturing warranty to take care of initial defects. And on most it would make sense to buy a newer model as in todays world consumer electronics are not only getting cheaper by the day, but are also have more function & features.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8624b575126f4c13397d919879af032f",
"text": "In all probability, having lower coverage levels will result in higher premiums. As my insurance agent explained to me, the higher your coverages, the lower the insurance company believes your risk to be - because you think about insurance smartly, you're less likely to make spurious claims. I have my coverages run at various levels every 18-24 months, and it is almost always true that higher coverages result in lower premiums. Also, there is no guarantee you'll still be employed by the same company if an injury happens. Or that they'll continue to offer the same plans every year. Insurance is a calculated risk on the part of the insurer, and a means of sharing/deflecting risk (at a cost known as your premium) on the part of the insured. Even if your premiums are slightly higher (on the order of a couple dollars per month, for example), do you really want to save a couple dollars and then be surprised when your health insurance company doesn't want to cover something?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "084088085c5d314c7889b4ff5d7668ba",
"text": "\"Let's face it: most people pay more in insurance premiums than they \"\"get back\"\" in claims. I put \"\"get back\"\" in quotes because, with very few exceptions, the money paid out in claims does not go to the insured, but to others, such as doctors and hospitals. But even if you ignore the question who does the money actually go to, it's a losing proposition for most people. The exceptions are those who have a major loss, greater than what they put in over the years. But never forget: these are exceptions. The return on your money, on the average, is only a little better than playing the lottery. The usual counter-argument to the above is, but what if you are one of the exceptions? I for one refuse to let my life be dictated by worries of unlikely events that might happen. If you're the sort who obsesses on what could (but probably won't) happen, then maybe you should have insurance. Just don't tell me I need to do the same. When I lived in California, they had a program where you could deposit $25,000 with the State, and then you could drive, legally, without insurance. I did this for a while, didn't have any accidents, and exited the system (when I moved out of state) a few years later with more money (interest) than I put in. You don't accomplish that with insurance. But let's get back to rich people. Unless you get into an accident with you at fault and the other guy needing a head transplant as a result (joke), you could probably absorb the cost of an accident without blinking an eye. Those in the upper-middle-class might do well with high-deductible insurance that only pays out if there's an extreme accident. Then again if you have to borrow to buy something expensive (making monthly payments), they will usually demand you buy insurance with it. This is a way for the lender to protect himself at your expense, and if you refuse, good luck getting a loan somewhere else. I hate the idea of insurance so much I would make an act of insurance punishable by law.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
aaa2ff8d0971ec5d825a181f139ff5cf
|
Discount Rate vs. IRR
|
[
{
"docid": "ba7bf795e580e31b8c830138b431da26",
"text": "The IRR is the Discount Rate r* that makes Net Present Value NPV(r*)==0. What this boils down to is two ways of making the same kind of profitability calculation. You can choose a project with NPV(10%)>0, or you can choose based on IRR>10%, and the idea is you get to the same set of projects. That's if everything is well behaved mathematically. But that's not the end of this story of finance, math, and alphabet soup. For investments that have multiple positive and negative cash flows, finding that r* becomes solving for the roots of a polynomial in r*, so that there can be multiple roots. Usually people use the lowest positive root but really it only makes sense for projects where NPV(r)>0 for r<r* and NPV(r)<0 for r>r*. To try to help with your understanding, you can evaluate a real estate project with r=10%, find the sum future discounted cash flows, which is the NPV, and do the project if NPV>0. Or, you can take the future cash flows of a project, find the NPV as a function of the rate r, and find r* where NPV(r*)==0. That r* is the IRR. If IRR=r*>10% and the NPV function is well behaved as above, you can also do the project. When we don't have to worry about multiple roots, the preceding two paragraphs will select the same identical sets of projects as meeting the 10% return requirement.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a6d6c2dfacbe46f6f752dfa6d719a695",
"text": "\"401(k) doesn't have a \"\"return rate\"\", because 401(k) is not a type of investment -- it is a vehicle for investment, with certain tax treatments. Just like your money that's not in a 401(k), you can invest it in either the bank, a CD, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc., you can similarly (depending on the options given to you by your 401(k) plan) invest the money in the 401(k) in a cash account, buy stocks, mutual funds, etc. Your return is dependent on how you invest your money, not whether it's in a 401(k) or not. Whether it's in a (Roth or Traditional) 401(k) simply affects when and how it gets taxed. (It is true that most 401(k) plans offer little variety in types of investments you can choose; however, this is not a big deal, as chances are that in a few years, you will leave your company, at which point you are able to rollover the 401(k) into an IRA, at which point you will have many, many options for how to invest it.) To make a valid comparison, you should be comparing the same type of investment in both cases. That means, you should assume the same return for both the money outside the 401(k), and the money inside the 401(k), and only consider the taxes and penalties (if you plan to withdraw early).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "938e0934aa2d179ba7d19a376b146a29",
"text": "the difference would be taxes... Lets say you have two lots, one with a 10 dollar gain, and one with a 20 dollar gain. And lets say you decide to sell one lot this year, and the other lot in 10 years. AND, lets say that it turns out the stock price is exactly the same in ten years as it is when you sell the first lot. In all likelyhood, you'll have more income, and therefore you are likely to be in a different marginal tax rate. If you believe that you're more likely to pay more taxes in 10 years, then sell the lot with the higher gain now. If you believe you're more likely to pay more taxes now, then sell the lot with the lower gain now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "436e606993adfe059428fade9b30bcb4",
"text": "it depends on you, thats just the point, how risk averse you are determines how wide your risk premium needs to be to as you feel adequately compensate you for the risk you are taking. If I have some money i inherited from grandad and I want to make 15% on it then my required rate is 15% on top of the risk free rate. Thats what I require. Alternatively you could use a historic market rate to to determine the markets required return since on average that should be correct allowing you to sell your asset later to the average market participant. Thats easy for the equity investment. Because you have two different asset classes for your investments you could use different discount rates using the historic market risk premium in each asset's market or you can use the same discount rate for both which makes it easier to compare. In the second case I would discount using the equity required return since the equity investment you are not making is the opportunity cost of your real estate investment. At the end of the day its a value judgment in my opinion and there isn't a right. Your understanding of the economics and from that what is important will inform what you use as a discount rate and that value judgment is kindha where an analyst adds value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb6ac862a66bbb445259d15855dd771",
"text": "Usually I've seen people treat the dividend like a separate cash flow, which is discounted if the company doesn't have a well-established dividend history. I've never really seen dividends rolled into a total return chart (except in the context of an article), probably because dividend reinvestment is a nightmare of record-keeping in a taxable account, and most folks don't do it. One of my brokers (TD Ameritrade) does allow you to plot dividend yield historically on their charts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75a0733bd9cb8aa9b7ca1bc98780f9f2",
"text": "\"Here's a link to an online calculator employing the Discounted Cash Flow method: Discounted Cash Flows Calculator. Description: This calculator finds the fair value of a stock investment the theoretically correct way, as the present value of future earnings. You can find company earnings via the box below. [...] They also provide a link to the following relevant article: Investment Valuation: A Little Theory. Excerpt: A company is valuable to stockholders for the same reason that a bond is valuable to bondholders: both are expected to generate cash for years into the future. Company profits are more volatile than bond coupons, but as an investor your task is the same in both cases: make a reasonable prediction about future earnings, and then \"\"discount\"\" them by calculating how much they are worth today. (And then you don't buy unless you can get a purchase price that's less than the sum of these present values, to make sure ownership will be worth the headache.) [...]\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd4c25ae22b5388801ba235a5b19a8a",
"text": "Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rate of your central bank. As I said, this would be a simple fast measure (not considering risk rating of the bonds, inflation and other considerations). Take a notional 1000 as invetment in each instrument and calculate the NPV, higher it is better the investment. Another method, in terms of percentage return would be Internal rate of Return (IRR). Though the calcualtionis a bit more complicated, it would give you a percentage figure. Note, the above 2 measures are used when the cashflow over the time period is known. It will not work for instruments where the cashflow/value over different time are not known. Like stocks.",
"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": ""
},
{
"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": "d9ce05ddb40dc946e759da0253008cb9",
"text": "The short answer is you'd be much better off paying up front in this case. The present value of $2,500 plus 12 $500 monthly payments is $8,128 at a 12% discount rate, which is much higher then the $6,000 you could pay now. The long answer is how you get that present value. How can I use time value of money to find the present value of money if I choose to go with option A? First of all, I'd question your discount rate. A 12% discount rate means that you can safely reinvest the money that you're not spending today at a 12% annual (1% monthly) rate, which seems very high. Normally for short-term spending decisions you'd use a risk-free rate, which would be closer to 1%-2%. However, to discount at 1% monthly you'd just divide each monthly payment by 1 plus the discount rate raised to the power of the number of periods until each payment. So the total is which is $8,127.54 You could also use the NPV function in Excel. It seems like to get an accurate answer the calculation of the interest rate should take into account compounding period as well? Correct, and in the example above the compounding is assumed to be monthly since that's the periodicity of the cash flows. You could calculate it with a different compounding period but it gets much more complicated and probably wouldn't make a significant difference. The discount rate does take compounding into effect, meaning if you saved the $5,628 (the PV of $8,128 minus the $2,500 initial payment), you'd earn 1% interest on $5,628 the first month, $5,128 plus that interest the second month, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fef389da72a3933fc59fbc4e3eb5879",
"text": "I concur that you should probably go with option 1. And that is coming from a guy that refinanced all three of his properties with down to 20% equity 3 years ago to lock in either 4% 30 year fixed or 2.75% 15 year mortgage. And I will not pay them off early because I do think I can do better than that in the market even if inflation is 0% for the next 30 years. Just imagine when the fed stops manipulating tax rates. I could be making more than 4% just in a checking account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c5f3fa9c403ed07a04f73d4794e2a74",
"text": "\"You are thinking about it this way: \"\"The longer I wait to exericse, the more knowledge and information I'll have, thus the more confidence I can have that I'll be able to sell at a profit, minimizing risk. If I exercise early and still have to wait, there may never be a chance I can sell at a profit, and I'll have lost the money I paid to exercise and any tax I had to pay when I exercised.\"\" All of that is true. But if you exercise early: The fair market value of the stock will probably be lower, so you may pay less income tax when you exercise. (This depends on your tax situation. Currently, ISO exercises affect your AMT.) If the company goes through a phase where the value is unusually high, you'll be able to sell and still get the tax benefits because you exercised earlier. You avoid the nightmare scenario where you leave the company (voluntarily or not) and can't afford to exercise your options because of the tax implications. In many realistic cases, exercising earlier means less risk. Imagine if you're working at a company that is privately held and you expect to be there for another year or so. You are very optimistic about the company, but not sure when it will IPO or get acquired and that may be several years off. The fair market value of the stock is low now, but may be much higher in a year. In this case, it makes a lot of sense to exercise now. The cost is low because the fair market value is low so it won't result in a huge tax bill. And then when you leave in a year, you won't have to choose between forfeiting your options or borrowing money to pay the much higher taxes due to exercise them then.\"",
"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": "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": "c976275b07f08beafa961ce161e4872b",
"text": "NRE is better. It's a tax free account, exempt from income tax. NRE account is freely repatriable (Principal and interest earned) while the NRO account has restricted repatriability",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "58986463fbf12cdd78a18aa57e6414b2",
"text": "No that is your implicit return if you hold it to maturity per year. That yield is quoted per annum. You will receive semi-annual payments base on the coupon of whatever off the run 10yr you buy. If your coupon is 2% then you will receive $10 bi-yearly. Mind you, buying a 10 year in this environment will yield a negative real return, meaning after inflation over 10 years you will have your entire principal back, but inflation adjusted it will have less purchasing power than today, meaning there isn't enough yield to make the purchase worth it. Also about your upward slope question, yes the 30 will yield more than the 2,5,7,10. This is because longer time means more risk. Will in the future the USA be perceived as near riskless? There is also interest rate risk, and liquidity risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8aad481a7ad96e8e7f3956af8901fa49
|
Do there exist any wikipedia type sites for evaluating financial service providers?
|
[
{
"docid": "aa633c55864342608d7168ccac2dfe53",
"text": "It is always a good idea if you are worried about customer service and hidden gotchas to visit http://getsatisfaction.com - they operate as an independent complaint board for many companies. http://getsatisfaction.com/bankofamerica for example alerts you to many problems with using BofA. In addition, googling for common complaint terms is a great idea. It's easy to learn why bank of america sucks and to see that not too many people think bank of america rocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24bf7a39a85a27540fd6df3267e7eb0",
"text": "\"Excellent question. I'm not aware of one. I was going to say \"\"go visit some personal finance blogs\"\" but then I remembered that I write on one, and that I often get a commission if I talk about online accounts, so unless something is really bad I'm not going to post on it because I want to make money, not chase it away. This isn't to say that I'm biased by commissions, but among a bunch of online banks paying pretty much the same (crappy) interest rate and giving pretty much the same (often not crappy) service, I'm going to give air time to the ones that pay the best commissions. That, and some of the affiliate programs would kick me out if I trashed them on my blog. This also would taint any site, blog or not, that does not explicitly say that they do not have affiliate relationships with the banks they review. I suppose if you read enough blogs you can figure out the bad ones by their absence, but that takes a lot of time. Seems like you'd do all right by doing a \"\"--bank name-- sucks\"\" Google search to dig up the dirt. That, or call up / e-mail / post on their forum any questions you have about their services before sending them your money. If they're up front, they'll answer you.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ffb51ec6e667a0e05d682b5d8b706b67",
"text": "I am very familiar with the Bloomberg terminal service and agree that their info on securities & markets, especially fixed income, is unparalleled. However, their news and editorial departments espouse the viewpoints of Michael Bloomberg such as being permabullish in the face of data, pro gun control, pro immigration (legal+illegal), pro Israel, and pro Sunni monarchies (Saudi et al).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f11640691744f1a407485119559763a3",
"text": "Good thing I'm not at Freddie anymore. Not sure what I would have picked (They don't use quite the same analyst/VP/Director framework, VP there is like MD elsewhere). Not sure what someone at the Fed or Treasury would put either, or the rating agencies, or Reuters or Bloomberg. Before Freddie, I was working for a financial software provider. Gonna be hard to be inclusive with that list. And frankly, VP - IB doesn't even tell you much. I'd much rather know what sector everyone worked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cedbdc99a922a2cb2d174e2739d79074",
"text": "The Khan Academy has a huge series on finance (Sal Khan used to work at a hedge fund before he started his magnum opus): http://www.khanacademy.org/#core-finance Some are pretty basic stuff, but he does have some interesting commentary and snippets of more interesting topics. They're all very low-commitment and bite-sized.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0e9db69eef27c1bdf95c462af1dc428",
"text": "Bloomberg Professional seems to be very popular. It provides any kind of data you can imagine. Analysis is a subjective interpretation of the data.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5757b6e4e418452ae0693563db8b0ec",
"text": "GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "812a21841968b8016fe9dddda33b9b22",
"text": "Is there one out there that doesn't suffer from massive survivorship bias? Most that I've looked at gather their data from discretionary reporting from the manager themselves, and many stop reporting after bad months when they aren't going to be raising capital anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dde75a1e21f7b47ec49b3adab2452970",
"text": "Mint.com—Easy solution to provide insight into finances. Pros: Cons:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9ccfdba20ef447dbf563a6f495244da",
"text": "I've got a small position at Lending Club and it's doing really well. It's been easy to use, good (not excellent) interface, easy to track the loans you've made & does a good job with notifications. Not much there for doing anything advanced with the portfolio math--I've used a separate spreadsheet to track things *as well as* use their reporting. The one catch with them I find is that when you put an order in you have to wait longer than you might expect for the process to complete--that is, even after the loan is *funded*, it still has to be *reviewed*, so the lead time before your money begins earning interest might be 2 weeks + 1 week of review time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2d27d9aa0824213fa71520c93956ae6",
"text": "I'm not familiar enough with finance in any capacity to know what the difference is between financial services or a finance department (beyond what you said); my familiarity of the industry extends to trading, rating, and financial law enforcement. But at a glance on mobile, that looks like pretty much exactly what I was looking for. I have no connect to the industry, but habe been on a Wall St media binge lately, and like to understand powerful/influencial sectors of society anyways. Thanks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ef268dc015520b43687afb038fb8c2c",
"text": "You should check out existing resources like Investopedia for definitions, and ask questions if there is something you do not understand, instead of asking folks to spit out definitions. A good book for you to read might be Wall Street Words",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f273f70f6f09dc36714382c6fe6fa2f",
"text": "Morningstar has that 10 history at http://financials.morningstar.com/ratios/r.html?t=JNJ®ion=usa&culture=en-US",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77ecf212f4efc907eee18d547f3912ca",
"text": "No career advice or homework help (unless your homework is some kind of big project and you need an explanation on a concept). I want to see financial news, legislation concerning the markets and regulation, self posts about financial concepts, opinion articles about finance from reputable sources, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cccc3b578e26b8a40415ddcb570733a4",
"text": "They are almost always behind paywalls. The analysts that write these reports need to get paid somehow. I'd search for reports on google by specific topic and see what you find, but no where is there a treasure trove of free information",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52b2074638c47895005ab9914d5e82dd",
"text": "Here is a list of threads in other subreddits about the same content: * [IMF:Debt Sustainability Analyses for Low-Income Countries: An Assessment of Projection Performance(PDF)](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/79qemw/imfdebt_sustainability_analyses_for_lowincome/) on /r/Economics with 7 karma (created at 2017-10-31 04:16:16 by /u/mberre) ---- ^^I ^^am ^^a ^^bot ^^[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index)-[Code](https://github.com/PokestarFan/DuplicateBot)-[Bugs](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypgmx/bugs_and_problems/)-[Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/comments/6ypg85/suggestion_for_duplicatesbot/)-[Block](https://www.reddit.com/r/DuplicatesBot/wiki/index#wiki_block_bot_from_tagging_on_your_posts) ^^Now ^^you ^^can ^^remove ^^the ^^comment ^^by ^^replying ^^delete!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81c016998574efc6dbf2244659066d3b",
"text": "\"Strategy would be my top factor. While this may be implied, I do think it helps to have an idea of what is causing the buy and sell signals in speculating as I'd rather follow a strategy than try to figure things out completely from scratch that doesn't quite make sense to me. There are generally a couple of different schools of analysis that may be worth passing along: Fundamental Analysis:Fundamental analysis of a business involves analyzing its financial statements and health, its management and competitive advantages, and its competitors and markets. When applied to futures and forex, it focuses on the overall state of the economy, interest rates, production, earnings, and management. When analyzing a stock, futures contract, or currency using fundamental analysis there are two basic approaches one can use; bottom up analysis and top down analysis. The term is used to distinguish such analysis from other types of investment analysis, such as quantitative analysis and technical analysis. Technical Analysis:In finance, technical analysis is a security analysis methodology for forecasting the direction of prices through the study of past market data, primarily price and volume. Behavioral economics and quantitative analysis use many of the same tools of technical analysis, which, being an aspect of active management, stands in contradiction to much of modern portfolio theory. The efficacy of both technical and fundamental analysis is disputed by the efficient-market hypothesis which states that stock market prices are essentially unpredictable. There are tools like \"\"Stock Screeners\"\" that will let you filter based on various criteria to use each analysis in a mix. There are various strategies one could use. Wikipedia under Stock Speculator lists: \"\"Several different types of stock trading strategies or approaches exist including day trading, trend following, market making, scalping (trading), momentum trading, trading the news, and arbitrage.\"\" Thus, I'd advise research what approach are you wanting to use as the \"\"Make it up as we go along losing real money all the way\"\" wouldn't be my suggested approach. There is something to be said for there being numerous columnists and newsletter peddlers if you want other ideas but I would suggest having a strategy before putting one's toe in the water.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d5eb140b58d2f84f9b2e2ec7fcb1cd7e
|
What to do with $50,000?
|
[
{
"docid": "3546d674628d675d54ccf4a127512ef0",
"text": "Here is some good advice, read your UCO prospectus. It seems to hold 20% of it's value ($600MM out of $3B) via 13800 of the Apr 21st 2015 contracts. (expiring in 30 days) Those will be rolled very quickly into the May contracts at a significant loss of NAV. (based on current oil futures chains) Meaning if crude oil stays exactly the same price, you'd still lose 1% (5% spread loss * .20% the percentage of NAV based off futures contracts) on the roll each month. Their other $2.4Billion is held in swaptions or cash, unsure how to rate that exposure. All I know is those 13,800 contracts are in contango danger during roll week for the next few months (IMO). I wonder if there is a website that tracks inflows and outflows to see if they match up with before and after the roll periods. http://www.proshares.com/funds/uco_daily_holdings.html How Oil ETFs Work Many oil ETFs invest in oil futures contracts. An oil futures contract is a commitment to buy a given amount of crude oil at a given price on a particular date in the future. Since the purpose of oil ETFs is only to serve as an investment vehicle to track the price of oil, the creators of the fund have no interest in stockpiling actual oil. Therefore, oil ETFs such as USO periodically “roll over” their futures contracts by selling the contracts that are approaching expiration and buying contracts that expire farther into the future. The Contango Problem While this process of continually rolling over futures contracts may seem like a great way to track the price of crude oil, there’s a practical problem with the method: contango. The rollover method would work perfectly if oil funds could sell their expiring contracts for the exact same price that they pay for the futures contracts they buy each month. However, in reality, it’s often true that oil futures contracts get more expensive the farther their expiration date is in the future. That means that every time the oil ETFs roll over their contracts, they lose the difference in value between the contracts they sell and the contracts they buy. That’s why funds like USO, which invests only in WTI light, sweet crude oil futures contracts, don’t directly track the performance of the WTI crude oil spot price. http://www.etftrends.com/2015/01/positioning-for-an-oil-etf-rebound-watch-for-contango/ Due to these reasons, I'd deem UCO for swing trading, not for 'investing' (buy-and-hold). Maybe later I'll remember why one shouldn't buy and hold leveraged vehicles (leverage slippage/decay). Do you have an exit price in mind ? or are you buy and hold ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86272c93bc6326f6228681ce58d2a4ac",
"text": "Considered a down payment on a house? Some illiquid assets? Otherwise you are doing 'responsible' get rich slow (read: get rich old) type things. And this question only invites opinion based answer. You tried futures and don't want to take that kind of risk again with your $50,000, so thats that",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ebe67949afdb8947a5ca342f55c2393",
"text": "Before anything else, pay down any debt at higher interest rates. Best guaranteed return on investment you can get. What do you plan to use the money for, when, with how much advance planning? How risk-tolerant are you, and how patient are you ? Would you see a dip in an asset's value as lost money or a buying opportunity? A good financial advisor -- and I mean one who is ONLY an advisor and not trying to sell you anything but their services -- can take answers of that sort and recommend a mix of investment types that will suit your needs. Knowing that balance, you can the pick specific investments to suit. (I remain a fan of low-fee index funds as a painless way to get good diversification, with some small percentage for more active trading if you really want to invest the effort and are convinced you can beat the odds.) Other answers here on the personal finance discussion go into this in detail, so I don't think it's worth repeating here unless there's something really unusual about your situation.",
"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": "252851bb2da3621d7ad059dcc0ae87fb",
"text": "\"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccdfb95bba9a39dd154f1bfddbefe85b",
"text": "How much money do you have in your money market fund and what in your mind is the purpose of this money? If it is your six-months-of-living-expenses emergency fund, then you might want to consider bank CDs in addition to bond funds as an alternative to your money-market fund investment. Most (though not necessarily all, so be sure to check) bank CDs can be cashed in at any time with a penalty of three months of interest, and so unless you anticipate being laid off very soon, you might get a slightly better rate of interest, FDIC insurance (which mutual funds do not have), and with any luck you may never have to break a CD and lose the interest. Building a ladder of CDs with one maturing each month might be another way to reduce the risk of loss. On the other hand, bond mutual funds are a risky bet now because your investment will lose value if interest rate go up, and as JohnFx points out, interest rates have nowhere to go but up. Finally, the amount of the investment is something that you might want to consider before making changes. If you have $50K put away as your six-month fund, you are talking of $500 versus $350 per annum in changing to a riskier investment with a 1% yield from a safer investment with a 0.7% yield. Whether bragging rights at neighborhood parties are worth the trouble is something for you to decide.",
"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": "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": "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": "a86eca50032bb7a18ff6eb8b2a5941a0",
"text": "What's your basis? If you have just made a 50% gain, maybe you should cash out a portion and hold the rest. Don't be greedy, but don't pass up an opportunity either.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40965c0ba17523dcab20b0d0a7b79a96",
"text": "\"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3bb6162ba093499fdf62d7ca8942e860",
"text": "Where you can put the money really depends on your risk tolerance. You could take $50k and put it into a good share class municipal and government bond fund that would likely be tax exempt. In a few years span I don't think you're likely to lose much in a tax-managed bond fund but it's certainly possible! Here is a link for Vanguard tax-exempt bond funds by state of residency: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/vanguard-mutual-funds-list?assetclass=bond&taxeff=xmpt These funds have returns well exceeding CD's or standard savings accounts. Risk of loss is real, but returns are possible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc8ad4c00944d348b3b0d66ea8f9e6fe",
"text": "The $50k is subject to the appropriate income taxes, which may include FICA taxes including the employer share if you are self employed. The after tax money can then be invested with the amount invested being the cost basis (I.e., if you invest $40k you will have a cost basis of $40k). In future years you will have taxes due if any of those investments pay dividends (or capital gain distributions). Once you sell you will have a capital gain or loss that you will pay taxes on (or take a deduction if a loss). Now you can improve this picture if you are able to put some of your money into a retirement account (either a tax deductible or a ROTH). With retirement accounts you do not pay tax on the capital gains or dividends. If you use a tax deferred account your tax is higher but that is because you were also investing Uncle Sam's portion of your pay check.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "481467d7deea46bb5ea3a473c02ce5ef",
"text": "\"Pay off the credit cards. From now on, pay off the credit cards monthly. Under no circumstances should you borrow money. You have net worth but no external income. Borrowing is useless to you. $200,000 in two bank accounts, because if one bank collapses, you want to have a spare while you wait for the government to pay off the guarantee. Keep $50,000 in checking and another $50k in savings. The remainder put into CDs. Don't expect interest income beyond inflation. Real interest rates (after inflation) are often slightly negative. People ask why you might keep money in the bank rather than stocks/bonds. The problem is that stocks/bonds don't always maintain their value, much less go up. The bank money won't gain, but it won't suddenly lose half its value either. It can easily take five years after a stock market crash for the market to recover. You don't want to be withdrawing from losses. Some people have suggested more bonds and fewer stocks. But putting some of the money in the bank is better than bonds. Bonds sometimes lose money, like stocks. Instead, park some of the money in the bank and pick a more aggressive stock/bond mixture. That way you're never desperate for money, and you can survive market dips. And the stock/bond part of the investment will return more at 70/30 than 60/40. $700,000 in stock mutual funds. $300,000 in bond mutual funds. Look for broad indexes rather than high returns. You need this to grow by the inflation rate just to keep even. That's $20,000 to $30,000 a year. Keep the balance between 70/30 and 75/25. You can move half the excess beyond inflation to your bank accounts. That's the money you have to spend each year. Don't withdraw money if you aren't keeping up with inflation. Don't try to time the market. Much better informed people with better resources will be trying to do that and failing. Play the odds instead. Keep to a consistent strategy and let the market come back to you. If you chase it, you are likely to lose money. If you don't spend money this year, you can save it for next year. Anything beyond $200,000 in the bank accounts is available for spending. In an emergency you may have to draw down the $200,000. Be careful. It's not as big a cushion as it seems, because you don't have an external income to replace it. I live in southern California but would like to move overseas after establishing stable investments. I am not the type of person that would invest in McDonald's, but would consider other less evil franchises (maybe?). These are contradictory goals, as stated. A franchise (meaning a local business of a national brand) is not a \"\"stable investment\"\". A franchise is something that you actively manage. At minimum, you have to hire someone to run the franchise. And as a general rule, they aren't as turnkey as they promise. How do you pick a good manager? How will you tell if they know how the business works? Particularly if you don't know. How will you tell that they are honest and won't just embezzle your money? Or more honestly, give you too much of the business revenues such that the business is not sustainable? Or spend so much on the business that you can't recover it as revenue? Some have suggested that you meant brand or stock rather than franchise. If so, you can ignore the last few paragraphs. I would be careful about making moral judgments about companies. McDonald's pays its workers too little. Google invades privacy. Exxon is bad for the environment. Chase collects fees from people desperate for money. Tesla relies on government subsidies. Every successful company has some way in which it can be considered \"\"evil\"\". And unsuccessful companies are evil in that they go out of business, leaving workers, customers, and investors (i.e. you!) in the lurch. Regardless, you should invest in broad index funds rather than individual stocks. If college is out of the question, then so should be stock investing. It's at least as much work and needs to be maintained. In terms of living overseas, dip your toe in first. Rent a small place for a few months. Find out how much it costs to live there. Remember to leave money for bigger expenses. You should be able to live on $20,000 or $25,000 a year now. Then you can plan on spending $35,000 a year to do it for real (including odd expenses that don't happen every month). Make sure that you have health insurance arranged. Eventually you may buy a place. If you can find one that you can afford for something like $100,000. Note that $100,000 would be low in California but sufficient even in many places in the US. Think rural, like the South or Midwest. And of course that would be more money in many countries in South America, Africa, or southern Asia. Even southern and eastern Europe might be possible. You might even pay a bit more and rent part of the property. In the US, this would be a duplex or a bed and breakfast. They may use different terms elsewhere. Given your health, do you need a maid/cook? That would lean towards something like a bed and breakfast, where the same person can clean for both you and the guests. Same with cooking, although that might be a second person (or more). Hire a bookkeeper/accountant first, as you'll want help evaluating potential purchases. Keep the business small enough that you can actively monitor it. Part of the problem here is that a million dollars sounds like a lot of money but isn't. You aren't rich. This is about bare minimum for surviving with a middle class lifestyle in the United States and other first world countries. You can't live like a tourist. It's true that many places overseas are cheaper. But many aren't (including much of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.). And the ones that aren't may surprise you. And you also may find that some of the things that you personally want or need to buy are expensive elsewhere. Dabble first and commit slowly; be sure first. Include rarer things like travel in your expenses. Long term, there will be currency rate worries overseas. If you move permanently, you should certainly move your bank accounts there relatively soon (perhaps keep part of one in the US for emergencies that may bring you back). And move your investments as well. Your return may actually improve, although some of that is likely to be eaten up by inflation. A 10% return in a country with 12% inflation is a negative real return. Try to balance your investments by where your money gets spent. If you are eating imported food, put some of the investment in the place from which you are importing. That way, if exchange rates push your food costs up, they will likely increase your investments at the same time. If you are buying stuff online from US vendors and having it shipped to you, keep some of your investments in the US for the same reason. Make currency fluctuations work with you rather than against you. I don't know what your circumstances are in terms of health. If you can work, you probably should. Given twenty years, your million could grow to enough to live off securely. As is, you would be in trouble with another stock market crash. You'd have to live off the bank account money while you waited for your stocks and bonds to recover.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9603a0a9d4512d6fff36ef5f330d02a4",
"text": "It seems very risky have all of your net worth in this one home. If I were to buy the house, I'm not sure I would put that much down, consider 20% and keep cash on hand, in retirement assets, etc. I would look at how much a mortgage, plus interest, taxes, insurance, etc. would cost with 50% down and with 20% down and see how that impacts your cash flow. Renting may make more sense, it's hard to tell without more specifics (NYTimes Rent/Buy calculator is a nice tool), but regardless, I would not want to have so much net worth tied into one asset and so would opt for less money down if I were to buy. Focus on rebuilding some retirement assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd09e8a1db0d28c7d37ad2059e0bdf28",
"text": "\"I would advise against \"\"wasting\"\" this rare opportunity on mundane things, like by paying off debts or buying toys - You can always pay those from your wages. Plus, you'll inevitably accumulate new debts over time, so debt repayment is an ongoing concern. This large pile of cash allows you to do things you can't ordinarily do, so use the opportunity to invest. Buy a house, then rent it out. Rent an apartment for yourself. The house rent will pay most (maybe all) of the mortgage, plus the mortgage interest is tax-deductible, so you get a lower tax bill. And houses appreciate over time, so that's an added bonus. When you get married, and start a family, you'll have a house ready for you, partially paid off with other people's money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2505d9200f286dc989cf64ef4e3ce9f0",
"text": "May I suggest putting it in a Roth IRA ($5,500 per year. Right now you can contribute to both 2015 and 2016 so that's $11K.)? Based on your description it sounds like your tax rate is very low, so it is awesome to put it away now and avoid taxes later on any gains you make on it. You can use Roth IRA money to pay for college, a home, or retirement. Within your Roth IRA, any of the investment options mentioned here will work. For example, CD's or money market accounts if you just want it to grow in a pretty much savings-account-like manner. You could also buy diversified mutual funds or have some fun buying individual stocks with some of it. I'm sorry to say that in the current market conditions you are not going to find a completely safe, cash-like investment or account that makes your money grow substantially. To do that you have to bear risk by buying risky stuff like stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a53943674802a7f24468cb4093badfa3",
"text": "\"At that sum, it essentially doesn't matter what you do, unless you just want to outright gamble the money. Let's look at some options: \"\"High\"\" interest guaranteed savings. A five year CD returns a sad 2% right now. That means if you invest all $1,000 into a CD, by 2016 you will have earned $105.08 in interest. Think about that: About a hundred bucks over the next five years. Of course, with 3% inflation, that $105.08 will be worth about $90.57. In fact, the total amount will be worth $953.25. Your \"\"doing something with your money\"\" did nothing. Stocks can return significantly more interest, but there is no guarantee. Even if you made 20% year on year, you would only make maybe $1,500 in returns or so in the next 5 years, and 20% every year is like Warren Buffet territory--totally unrealistic. That's also not taking into account inflation. And neither of these is taking into account taxes! However, if you go to a casino and gamble the $1,000, it is possible you could turn it into significantly more. It's very much unlikely, and I do not advise it at all, but it's possible. The point is, you need money to make money, and, in some sense, $1,000 is not money at all. I recommend you work on your skills, knowledge, and preparation for making money in the future, and by 25 or so you can really be cooking with gas. Don't waste your efforts trying to find a brilliant way to make a few hundred bucks over the next half decade. Save the money and find ways to try to double it by earning money on small projects. Then challenge yourself to double it again, and keep honing your skills.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cb5a9c98a5bc1f58c7956446369d6bd0
|
Credit rating in Germany
|
[
{
"docid": "b4cef42ee675d667be6dc81c75455b27",
"text": "The SCHUFA in Germany works a bit different from the FICO score in the US. My background: I am a German currently living in the US. The information others want to see from the SCHUFA are a bit different. If you want to example rent a house or an apartment, the landlord often wants to see a SCHUFA statement which only shows that there are no negative entries. This statement you can get easily from online and they don't mention your credit score there. If you apply for a real credit or want to lease a car, they want to look deeper in your SCHUFA profile. However, very important is: They need signed permission to do this. Every participating company can submit entries to your profile where the score is calculated from. For example mobile phone plans, leasing a car, applying for a loan. Some lenders decide on the score itself, some on the overall profile and some also take your income into account. Since there is no hire & fire in Germany you are often asked to show your last 3 paychecks. This, in combination with your SCHUFA score is used for determination if you are eligible for a loan or not. However, they check through every entry which is made there and as long as it is reasonable and fits to your income (car for 800 EUR/month with a 1000 EUR salary does not!) you should not have a problem establishing a good score. The, in my eyes, unfair part about Schufa is that they take your zip code and your neighborhood into account when calculating their score. Also moving often affects the score negatively. To finally answer your question: Credit history is also built by mobile phone plans etc. in Germany. As long as you pay everything on time you should be fine. A bad score can definitely hurt you, but it is not as important to have a score as it is in the US because the banks also determine your creditworthiness based on your monthly income and your spending behavior.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0a73935bc6dc247beaced5699dbfe8b",
"text": "The SCHUFA explicitly says on their website that their scoring system is a secret. However, if your goal is to be credit-worthy for example to get financing for a house or a car or whatever, just pay any loans and your credit card back on time and you'll be fine. There is no need to build a credit history. I just got a mortgage on a new house without any real credit history. I have one credit card which I only use on vacations because some countries don't take my debit card, and I always put money on it before I use it, so I've technically never borrowed money from a bank at all. My banker looked at my SCHUFA with me and we saw that there was nothing in there except for the credit card, which has a 500€ limit and if I maxed it out, the monthly interest would be 6,80€ so he added that 6,80€ to my expenses calculation and that was it. If you're having trouble getting a loan and you don't know why, you can ask the SCHUFA for the data they have on you and you can correct any mistakes they might have made. Sometimes, especially when you have the same full name and birth date as somebody else, the SCHUFA does get things mixed up and you have to sort it out.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "132e687702aa3c1ab0f5f97c9facfc6f",
"text": "If you are interested in this stuff, S&P produce a sovereign rating methodolgy, in which they will tell you exactly what factors they look at. Once you read this, you can obtain their latest rating report on India and Spain to understand how they applied said methodology in each case. (Not sure if this is free)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0b07b64c082a6a9a6aad727d821d2a4",
"text": "For instance and to give a comparison to the US - in Austria, almost everybody gets a credit card (without a credit history (e.g. a young person) / with a bad credit history & with a good credit history). The credit history is in the USA much more important than in Austria. In future, the way to assess a credit history will change due to analysis of social networks for instance. This can be considered in addition to traditional scoring procedures. Is your credit history/score like a criminal record? Nope. I mean is it always with you? Not really cause a criminal record will be retained on a central storage (to state it abstract) and a credit history can be calculated by private companies. Also, are there other ways to get credit cards besides with a bank? That depends on the country. In Austria, yes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2a32154f490a055c0eca5d48cf5c266",
"text": "In six months, there is little you can do that will significantly affect your future credit rating other than trying to avoid paying for something by leaving the country. As we keep telling people, the best things you can do for your credit rating are to have a good income and Don't Be Stupid about misusing credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a3d14531b68486b10dd13d0e195dd6c",
"text": "Surely there's more to the picture than this. Breaking the borrowing limit by going to 3.5% multiple times is surely no where near as bad as going to 18% once. On top of this there was a fundamental difference in the use of capital. Borrowing to invest (as Germany did) has been ridiculously beneficial for them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20699ddd02b61af4bdf4d3704421330d",
"text": "You borrow on the international makets. [Moody's predicts Scotland would get an 'A' credit rating](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27247870) [Standard & Poors - Independent Scotland could be AAA rated](http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/independent-scotland-could-be-aaa-rated-standard-poors) [Credit Suisse report independent Scotland would be ranked four places higher than the rUK.](http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/9637-scotland-ahead-of-ruk-even-without-oil-says-credit-suisse-report) [An independent Scotland would be a wealthy and financially viable country like New Zealand, but could suffer initial growing pains, according to credit ratings agency Standard & Poor's.](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/27/independent-scottish-economy-viable-slow-first-standard-poors)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a3b5dba9f57e8cd65d2b20b9781823e",
"text": "\"Frequently selling and buying properties is generally not advisable in Germany due to the high cost for property purchase tax (\"\"Grunderwerbssteuer\"\") and land registration fees (\"\"Grundbucheintrag\"\"). You can generally assume that ever time you trade homes, you pay about 10% extra. So it is likely a good idea to keep your property and rent it out while you don't need it so you can use the rent to pay for your new room. That's especially true if you expect the property to increase in value. Also, due to the low interest rate right now, real estate is practically the only good capital investment. A 85k asset which makes you 4.8k each year is a return of investment of 5.6%*. Any financial asset promising you that kind of dividend at the moment is likely equivalent to gambling. * yes, I ignored maintenance costs, but it's still a really good deal. If you want to rent out your flat as stress-free as possible, give it to a property management company (\"\"Hausverwalter\"\"). In exchange for a percentage of the monthly rent they will take care of all the small stuff (like hiring handymen to fix broken toilets). You might still have to pay for really expensive investments, though (like replacing a leaking roof). But when something like that happens, you should have no issue to finance it with a loan because you have a real estate as a security. However, keep in mind that the German tenancy law might make it difficult (but not impossible) to get rid of the tenant in case you want to move back into the apartment. Google \"\"Mietrecht Eigenbedarf\"\" for more details. Should you decide after your study that you don't want to move back, you can always sell the flat with the tenant. But rented properties usually get far lower prices on the real estate market than empty ones. Regarding covering your cost of living besides rent during your studies: If you are eligible for BAföG (state-sponsored student loan), you should take it, because it's an offer simply too good to refuse. It's literally free money. But unfortunately you are not, because you own too much real estate wealth you are not living in. But you should ask your bank for a loan backed by said property. That way you will likely pay far less interest than with a regular private student loan which isn't backed by anything except the hope for a relevant degree.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "681f7184bde61e9ceafddbd27414387a",
"text": "You really can't. Credit rating is determined by financial history, and until your kids are old enough to legally sign a contract they have essentially no financial history. Interesting out-of-the-box thought, but not workable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d807445b9349bc0ed11734145071c16",
"text": "There are some out there making the argument that negative yields on the German Schatz (2-year note) are the result of speculators betting on a break-up of the euro area and its common currency. Specifically that assets held in euros, i.e. German bonds, would be re-denominated into a new Deutschmark that would appreciate in value against other European currencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e26ea1f2b9b22dc57da81c581cb160f5",
"text": "In Germany you can register a Einzelunternehmen and receive payments into your personal bank account with a German bank. Apple will certainly be able to transfer to accounts in Germany as payments go via the European SEPA standard. Tax wise if you are living in Germany you will need to pay tax in Germany, so this is really the easiest way of doing it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a0e51701482c336d49b0c70ff30b860",
"text": "Credit agency sovereign ratings take into account the amount of external support the government is likely to get during a time of stress. The whole EU just came to Spain's rescue, but who would come to India's rescue so as to be sufficient to prevent default? See, the fact that Spain was able to get a bailout is most of the reason Spain's credit rating is higher than India's.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d7bab4567aa0a0f416f516020c77da9",
"text": "\"That's definitely a good point; thanks for noting that. Leverage was definitely an issue. Re: the ratings agencies, I just wanted to clarify that I was talking about something a bit different than the problem of \"\"ratings shopping\"\" (I assume this is what you meant what you mentioned the ratings agencies \"\"capitulating\"\"). \"\"Ratings shopping\"\" is essentially the tendency for a \"\"race to the bottom\"\" in ratings when banks pay for ratings. That has always been an issue for the ratings agencies since the 1970s (I think?) when they started having the rated entities pay for their ratings. What I was talking about is more unique to the structured products industry in the mid-2000s -- i.e. how the ratings agencies gave banks an opportunity for essentially risk-less profit by merely repackaging MBSs into CDOs. So banks would buy up MBSs, repackage them into CDOs, sell shares of the CDOs to investors, and then hedge all of the residual risk away by writing a CDS contract with a monoline insurer like AIG. This has more to do with the relationship *between* ratings for different products, and not the absolute \"\"level\"\" of the ratings for any given product. Sorry if that sounds nit-picky, but I think it's an extremely important detail that is generally lost upon -- as you pointed out -- economists who are pushing the \"\"ratings shopping\"\" theory. I would guess this is because moral hazard is a story they are already familiar with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "631d4d992cf098959782b7118bfdbffb",
"text": "Say there are 5 people took loan of $100000 each. Those 5 people work in different jobs and have different capacity to payoff loan. Someone earning $40000 a year has higher risk to default on their payment then someone making $250000 a year. As Bank wants to sell this CDO to investor but how would investor know what the risk factor for this CDO is. This is where rating agency comes in picture. They apparently look at the underlying asset and assign rating to this CDO say AAA, B, AA etc which give investor idea of underlying risk. Problem here is rating agency gets paid by Bank to rate their CDO. So if a rating agency starts rating their CDO to higher risk Bank will go to next agency round the corner to get better rating and agency will lose commission. You can see the problem here. Now if people start struggling to pay loan, bank will not get money and it cannot pay CDO holders. If house that was worth $100000 when CDO was created is devalued to say $50000 today the underlying asset is not worth as much when CDO was sold. That is what happened when market crashed in 2008 and GFC hit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6d7f1a65634009ecfd05aca99690e15",
"text": "\"Credit Scores / Rates are based on sometimes simple and sometimes quite complex Statistical Models (Generalised Linear Models, Neural Networks, Regression and Classification Trees, Mixture Models, etc).This depends on whether it is something more general like FICO or what large banks develop in-house. In any case, there are many legislation-dependent factors (Qualitative such as education, occupation security, sex, etc, payment history; or Quantitative such as age, liquidity and leverage ratios, etc). Now, most model that are used today are propriety and closely held trade secrets. The most important reason for this is actually because of the databases that feed the models. More better quality data is what makes the real difference ... although at the cutting-edge, the mathematicians/statisticians/computer scientists that design the algorithms will make a huge difference. Now, back to the main thing: The Credit Score/Rate is meant to be used only as an indicator for representing the Probability of Default (\"\"How likely you are to default on your obligation towards me?\"\" is what it means and that is largely based upon \"\"Has company/he/she honoured his financial obligations?\"\") of a certain consumer. In more sophisticated models, they may also use your industry sector or occupational and financial security to predict the future behaviour. However, this \"\"Credit Score\"\" has meaning only in relation to a \"\"Credit Limit\"\" (\"\"Can you pay back my $X?\"\"). The credit limit on the other hand is defined by your income level, debt/asset, etc). As a credit risk analyst, whether we are dealing with large corporate loans, mortgages, personal loans, etc), the principles are the same: One thing to consider is that factors considered in determining a credit score usually do not have a simple linear relationship. Consumer Profile types such as utilisation rate are a lot more about EFFECT than CAUSE: The most important thing is to honour your obligations, whether you pay before or after you spend makes little difference, so long as you pay in full and prior to maturity, your rate/score will improve with time. Financial Institutions have many ways to make money of everyone. Some, such as interest rates and fees are directly charged to you and some are charged to your goods-and-services providers. That has no bearing on your score. Sometimes it even makes sense to take on customers with rock-bottom ratings, lend them lots of money, and charge them to dirt. As you may well know, the recent financial crisis - with ongoing after-shocks and tremors - was the result of such practices.\"",
"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": "791a284b641dc2d848f1556503700ffe",
"text": "I don't know of any books, but there are a lot of good white papers on the subject if you take the time to look for them. For example, Moody's has a white paper on their LGD model (LossCalc) that explains their calibration methodology. Searching for academic papers on the subject is really the only way to go, because credit risk is a field that really is just being explored. Really only since 2006 have banks started to actively try to use a risk rating model that incorporates PD and LGD. This is because of data insufficiency - banks just didn't keep active and centralized loan level data that is required to calibrate the models. tl;dr: Use the internet - it is your friend.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
71f6c5c727ae0b53f8c387a34e55d623
|
Is dividend included in EPS
|
[
{
"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": "420682ca10f90e896ec85db9f666cf3a",
"text": "Not quite. The EPS is noted as ttm, which means trailing twelve months --- so the earnings are taken from known values over the previous year. The number you quote as the dividend is actually the Forward Annual Dividend Rate, which is an estimate of the future year's dividends. This means that PFE is paying out more in the coming year (per share) than it made in the previous year (per share).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8a432fd7f79bf4b261ed5115cd9b48f",
"text": "No, dividends are not included in earnings. Companies with no earnings sometimes choose to pay dividends. Paying the dividend does not decrease earnings. It does of course decrease cash and shows up on the balance sheet. Many companies choose to keep the dividend at a fixed rate even while the business goes through cycles of increased and decreased earnings.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "82299a4415bac48fb7fee972fa61914a",
"text": "Well, if the short seller has to pay the dividend out of their pocket, what happens to the dividend the company paid out ?? Sounds like there are 2 divdends floating around, the short's, and the company's, but only 1 share of stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f535a0d7cc0538b79c889db8e26ef801",
"text": "Stock price = Earning per share * P/E Ratio. Most of the time you will see in a listing the Stock price and the P/E ration. The calculation of the EPS is left as an exercise for the student Investor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c9b901dcb208842722dfa2933ce510e",
"text": "Stocks aren't just paper -- they're ownership of a company. Getting cash from a stock that doesn't pay dividends basically means reducing your stake in the company. If the stock pays dividends, on the other hand, you still have the same shares, but now you have cash too. You can choose to buy more of the company...or, more importantly, to use it elsewhere if that's what you want to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4731dfb1db064ae942c8e2fd7c36e757",
"text": "\"Dividends are declared by the board of directors of a corporation on date A, to stock holders of record on date B (a later date). These stockholders then receive the declared dividend on date C, the so-called payment date. All of these dates are announced on the first (declaration) date. If there is no announcement, no dividend will be paid. The stock typically goes down in price by approximately the amount of the dividend on the date it \"\"goes ex,\"\" but then moves in price to reflect other developments, including the possibility of another declaration/payment, three months hence. Dividends are important to some investors, especially those who live on the income. They are less important to investors who are out for capital gains (and who may prefer that the company reinvest its money to seek such gains instead of paying dividends). In actual fact, dividends are one component of \"\"total\"\" or overall return. The other component is capital gains, and the sum of the two represents your return.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f950e48b5b647f608e84a5e1e387e60",
"text": "Yes, as long as you own the shares before the ex-dividend date you will get the dividends. Depending on your instructions to your broker, you can receive cash dividends or you can have the dividends reinvested in more shares of the company. There are specific Dividend ReInvestment Plans (or DRIPs) if you are after stock growth rather than income from dividend payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43a8a0bd9f7e3a02c41380568ddbd89c",
"text": "\"Preferred dividends and common dividends are completely separate transactions. There's not a single \"\"dividend\"\" payment that is split between preferred and common shares. Dividends on preferred shares are generally MUCH higher than common dividends, and are generally required by the terms of the preferred shares, again unlike common dividends, which are discretionary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13264e24e496419687e087bd348bef42",
"text": "I believe this depends on the broker's policies. For example, here is Vanguard's policy (from https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/stocksbondscds/brokeragedividendprogram): Does selling shares affect a distribution? If you sell the entire position two days or more before the dividend-payable date, your distribution will be paid in cash. If, however, you sell an entire position within the two day time frame of the security's payable date, the dividend will be reinvested, resulting in additional shares. Selling these subsequent shares will require another sell order, which will incur additional commission charges. Dividends which would have been reinvested into less than one whole share will be automatically liquidated into cash. If you want to guarantee you receive no fractional shares, I'd call your broker and ask whether selling stock ABC on a particular date will result in the dividend being paid in shares.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71e70c6c3d426e2f03e616d2b9f7092d",
"text": "\"Let me provide a general answer, that might be helpful to others, without addressing those specific stocks. Dividends are simply corporate payouts made to the shareholders of the company. A company often decides to pay dividends because they have excess cash on hand and choose to return it to shareholders by quarterly payouts instead of stock buy backs or using the money to invest in new projects. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"\"dividend yield traps.\"\" If a company has declared an dividend for the upcoming quarter they will almost always pay. There are exceptions, like what happened with BP, but these exceptions are rare. Just because a company promises to pay a dividend in the approaching quarter does not mean that it will continue to pay a dividend in the future. If the company continues to pay a dividend in the future, it may be at a (significantly) different amount. Some companies are structured where nearly all of there corporate profits flow through to shareholders via dividends. These companies may have \"\"unusually\"\" high dividends, but this is simply a result of the corporate structure. Let me provide a quick example: Certain ETFs that track bonds pay a dividend as a way to pass through interest payments from the underlying bonds back to the shareholder of the ETF. There is no company that will continue to pay their dividend at the present rate with 100% certainty. Even large companies like General Electric slashed its dividend during the most recent financial crisis. So, to evaluate whether a company will keep paying a dividend you should look at the following: Update: In regards to one the first stock you mentioned, this sentence from the companies of Yahoo! finance explains the \"\"unusually\"\" dividend: The company has elected to be treated as a REIT for federal income tax purposes and would not be subject to income tax, if it distributes at least 90% of its REIT taxable income to its share holders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c225f0d51cc196dd2a9a93844144f5cb",
"text": "All that it is saying is that if you withdraw money from your account it doesn't matter whether it has come from dividends or capital gains, it is still a withdrawal. Of course you can only withdraw a capital gain if you sell part of the assets. You would only do this if it was the right time for you to sell the asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b9bfb10de69c54f7c139930dad20943",
"text": ".INX (the S&P 500 index itself) does not include reinvested dividens. You can figure total return by going to Yahoo finance, historical data. Choose the start year, and end year. You should find that data for SPY (going back to 1993) will show an adjusted close, and takes dividends into account. This isn't perfect as SPY has a .09% expense ratio, but it's better than just the S&P index. One of the more popular Dow ETF is DIA, this will let you similarly track the Dow while accounting for dividends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f62a9c3ee1993096a454a0ac9195c842",
"text": "\"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the \"\"growth versus income\"\" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically. To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a516485ed7c3d59a621a0758d557a508",
"text": "I believe that tax will be withheld (at 30%?) on dividends paid to non-residents. You can claim it back if your country has a tax treaty with the USA, but you will need to file. You probably also need to file a W-series withholding form (eg a W9-BEN). Interesting question. I would like to hear a more definitive answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c82725f2c339667dd6c65fc2bae50c3e",
"text": "I'm trying to think it out, but I feel like it would be hard to justify using potential profit sources as material for dividends. Especially your example of wine. Wouldn't it be counterintuitive to take a hit to sales, while still having the cost of production?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdb6ac862a66bbb445259d15855dd771",
"text": "Usually I've seen people treat the dividend like a separate cash flow, which is discounted if the company doesn't have a well-established dividend history. I've never really seen dividends rolled into a total return chart (except in the context of an article), probably because dividend reinvestment is a nightmare of record-keeping in a taxable account, and most folks don't do it. One of my brokers (TD Ameritrade) does allow you to plot dividend yield historically on their charts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f5be35d73911a8e4bb1ee71beffac30b",
"text": "I'm not a seller, but I see this as good for those who are selling bad items, but also a big opportunity for scammers. I wonder what is the limits on it, I hope they have an abuse system in place.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1b571d01eca553b960c0ff819c475016
|
If I get a bill (e.g. for internet service), is that a debt I owe? If no, what are the practical difference between a bill and a debt?
|
[
{
"docid": "946ea126eae0ed43396aa7a733be9258",
"text": "From accounting perspective, an unpaid bill for internet services, according to the Accruals Concept, is recorded as a liability under 'Current Liabilities' section of the Balance Sheet. Also as an expense on the Income Statement. So to answer your question it is both: a debt and an expense, however this is only the case at the end of the period. If you manage to pay it before the financial period ends this is simply an expense that is financed by cash or other liquid Asset on the Balance Sheet such as prepayment for example. For private persons you are generally given some time to pay the bill so it is technically a debt (Internet Provider would list you as a debtor on their accounts), but this is not something to worry about unless you are not considering to pay this bill. In which case your account may be sold as part of a factoring and you will then have a debt affecting your credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "117688752ea927341f36a9f0a79df182",
"text": "A debt is created when the service is rendered or the goods are sold to you. The bill is simply a way of recording the debt and alerting you to it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "652321ec91a929624a156d39b09d148f",
"text": "While I'm not an accountant, this is how I do this for my personal accounting: Note, if you don't want the expense to take effect right away meaning it'll affect your Profits, then the transaction date here needs to be something in the future, then when you hit that date and the bill is still not paid, you just unpost the bill and repost again with a new date . So you end up with something like the following: 4. Now you post the invoice to Liabilities:Accounts Payable:The Cable Company, the invoice due date should reflect what you had in the invoice. This is important as gnucash will warn you that your bill is due if you want to pay it every time it starts: When you're ready to pay the bill, just find the bill and click pay invoice. If it's already paid and you imported transactions from your bank, find the transaction then right click and click assign as payment then choose your invoice. Note: I've being using this to also record cheques that are given to people but not cashed yet. I hope that helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14a5c1fa8ba40025c86bfdd6cf559442",
"text": "If you ended at your second paragraph, no. It's simply a refund of your own money. Same as any time I get any cash back, whether due to a credit card reward program or price match. But. Your 4th paragraph changes this. Yes, you owe tax, as it's clearly not your own money coming back. Even barter income is taxable. Per the new comments appearing, this is not a case of bartering. I cited bartering as an understandable example of when there's no cash and yet, tax is owed. In this situation, value is received, and it counts as income similar to the barter situations. Just because the value isn't in cash doesn't negate the tax due. I'd rhetorically ask how OP pays his rent/mortgage, utilities, cell phone bill, etc. The answer is simple, non-traditional income, as OP puts it, has a tax due.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b60285667cabb7538920764bd769b3f",
"text": "You aren't paying for your internet buddy. You are paying for a portion of the services that your internet provider charges you for. However you are not paying for the infrastructure, electricity, utilities, security, and all the other things that are required in order for that ISP to be able to bring internet to your house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eafc311a47898fc86cd2c0adc1a07ff",
"text": "Legal Tender means you have to accept that money as payment for a legal (as in not illegal) debt. If I'm in country X, and we go to court over a dispute of a debt, the law in most places is that the court will insist the debt be paid in the local legal tender at a specific amount. As others already said below - taxes, etc -those are debts. Eating at a restaurant is a debt (you ate it already) Filling up with gas without paying first is a debt. Employees work for you build up debt. But in any private transaction where there is no debt, people are free to do whatever they want (let's ignore discrimination laws and whatnot for this discussion, mmkay?). You can come into my store and I can insist that today I'll only accept euros. Or jelly beans. Or I can choose to simply not do business with you. We are two free people who are under no obligation to do business with each other, and if we choose to, how we choose to remunerate each other for that business is completely up to us. (How I pay the sales tax on that transaction, though, well, thats' between me and the tax authorites, and will be in the local legal tender)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "914cf45781f65096709ea6f6a48237cf",
"text": "No. A company cannot bill you for services you did not request nor receive. If they could, imagine how many people would just randomly get bills in their mail. Ignore them. They don't have a contract or agreement with you and can't do anything other than make noise. If they get aggressive or don't stop requesting money, hire an attorney and it will be taken care of.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e71f228afd0edf155e68003fb0ba718a",
"text": "One thing I didn't see mentioned - my major bills are all electronic transfer, i.e. there is no check mailed. A bill due in 2 days can be set up now, and still paid the day after tomorrow. Try that with a check. There are smaller companies that are not done that way and a check mailed, but you state the due date not the mailing date. So the bank still has the obligation to get it there. This is how my particular bank works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ebec503ef03012849d8221c8319da17",
"text": "seriously money is debt has to be the most ridiculous comparison i've ever heard. that statement implies commutativity and certainly i would never say debt is money. i could take on debt to get money, but the debt itself is a liability and not an asset. your last paragraph about fiat money is correct, but i should say that with modern financial markets price discovery isn't some magic voodoo thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "023d05470168adccc3d63bbb78ff7203",
"text": "Same thing as for any debt: bank sues you, you lose, you are in an even deeper hole because you now owe them for the cost of the court case, your credit rating goes into the toilet, you may even have trouble retaining/finding a job. Being stupid is always more expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d995044ad18c80b473c60f26809a2562",
"text": "\"I disagree with the previous answer based upon your particular situation. If the column states something like \"\"Amount Due to you\"\", and is a negative number, then you owe that amount. Much like the previous poster states that a Balance would be money you owe, and if it was negative then the school owes you the same can be said for the column in question. If the number was positive, the school would owe you that amount, if negative then you owe them. Keep in mind you could always post a pic of the document blacking out personal information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e41ab5f9d9f6e13cf1e4fe2b019eb8d",
"text": "Someone else might be able to provide more details - but generally yes, of course. International corporations can pursue debt collection across borders - whether or not they do is a matter of convenience rather than law. My understanding is that a company's ability to report on your credit report is dependent on their membership in Equifax, USA etc. - so while most of your credit is country by country, international companies or companies with any relationship in other countries can follow you cross-border if they find out your new address and report the debt w/ that address. Since virtually every major company has some American affiliate, I wouldn't hold my breath that you can escape it indefinitely ESPECIALLY since you don't already have the debt, and have the power to actually pay for the service that you're using. Also - this is an incredibly scummy thing to do, and no matter how you dress it up as a financial decision it's just theft. Would you leave the country without paying your landlord? Without paying for groceries or other physical goods? Why is stealing from a telecom company any different?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8719fa1627174f44e4a5da918628dc1",
"text": "Yes, if somebody puts you in a multi trillion dollar deficit...yeah, it may take 60+ years to pay it off. Lets say your spouse racked up a few million in bills....that you are responsible to pay pack...how long do you think the fault will lie? Also, don't forget to add in lost opportunity costs of not being able to do anything else but pay back bills.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20e229bd64d5153fb81598370b56d30b",
"text": "\"I think you're thinking that \"\"in debt\"\" doesn't just mean \"\"owes a debt\"\" but somehow means \"\"owes more debt in total than the assets\"\". That condition, owing money without offsetting assets, is \"\"having a negative net worth\"\". If you have a mortgage then you have a debt and you are in debt. You may have a positive net worth, if you have equity in the house and your car and such like, and have cash in the bank. You may have a negative net worth if you owe more than you own. But either way you are technically in debt. Knowing that, it's not surprising that 75% of Americans are in debt. It's surprising that 25% are not. They have no credit card, no car loan, no mortgage, no line of credit, no student loans. Is it because they've paid all that off? Or because they are deadly poor and own nothing and can't be lent anything? You can't just say it's bad to have debt. It's bad to have too much debt, to have a negative net worth, to be in the habit of borrowing to finance a lifestyle you can't actually afford, and so on. But it's perfectly normal to have a debt or two. That's how our system mostly works.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b677bf9fd32eb6bc39174c40ce70a5b",
"text": "If the hospital is run like hospitals in the US it can take a long time just to determine the bill. The hospital, Emergency room, ER doctors, surgeons, anesthesiologists, X-Ray department, pharmacy and laboratory are considered separate billing centers. It can take a while to determine the charges for each section. Is there an insurance company involved? When there is one involved it can take weeks or months before the hospital determines what the individual owes. The co-pays, coverages, and limits can be very confusing. In my experience it can take a few months before the final amount is known. You may want to call the hospital to determine the status of the bills.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b4e473675196ea73e28c4a46e3d696f",
"text": "You're lending the money to your business by paying for it directly. The company accounts must reflect a credit (the amount you lend to it) and a debit (what it then puts that loan towards). It's fairly normal for a small(ish) owner-driven company to reflect a large loan-account for the owners. For example, if you have a room at home dedicated for the business it is impractical to pay rent directly via the company. The rental agreement is probably in your name, you pay the rent, and you reconcile it with the company later. You could even charge your company (taxable) interest on this loan. When you draw down the loan from the company you reverse this, debit your loan account and credit the company (paying off the debt). As far as tracking that expenditure, simply handle those third-party invoices in the normal way and file them for reference.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4217855657af5723dd47f882f3a402fb",
"text": "\"There is not one right way. It depends on the level of detail that you need. One way would be: Create the following accounts: When you pay the phone bill: When you are paid with the reimbursement: That is, when you pay the phone bill, you must debit BOTH phone expense to record the expense, and also reimbursements due to record the fact that someone now owes you money. If it's useful you could add another layer of complexity: When you receive the bill you have a liability, and when you pay it you discharge that liability. Whether that's worth keeping track of depends. I never do for month-to-month bills. Afterthought: I see another poster says that your method is incorrect because a reimbursement is not salary. Technically true, though that problem could be fixed by renaming the account to something like \"\"income from employer\"\". The more serious problem I see is that you are reversing the phone expense when you are reimbursed. So at the end of the year you will show total phone expense as $0. This is clearly not correct -- you did have phone expenses, they were just reimbursed. You really are treating the expense account as an asset account -- \"\"phone expenses due to be reimbursed by employer\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a63988584509ebe5c51db9fc8ca874c8
|
Issuing bonds at discount - computing effective interest rate
|
[
{
"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": "d6b8944581bb291c1e2b63f38afbdb03",
"text": "\"Yes, the \"\"effective\"\" and \"\"market\"\" rates are interchangeable. The present value formula will help make it possible to determine the effective interest rate. Since the bond's par value, duration, and par interest rate is known, the coupon payment can be extracted. Now, knowing the price the bond sold in the market, the duration, and the coupon payment, the effective market interest rate can be extracted. This involves solving large polynomials. A less accurate way of determining the interest rate is using a yield shorthand. To extract the market interest rate with good precision and acceptable accuracy, the annual coupon derived can be divided by the market price of the bond.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4bb5850e3ec9206f48e198dc9fef59bc",
"text": "If the market rate and coupon were equal, the bond would be valued at face value, by definition. (Not 100% true, but this is an exercise, and that would be tangent to this discussion). Since the market rate is higher than the coupon rate, the value I am willing to pay drops a bit, so my return is the same as the market rate. This can be done by hand, a time value of money calculation for each payment. Discount by the years till received at the market rate to get the present value for each payment, and sum up the numbers. The other way is to use a finance calculator and solve for rate. The final payment of $10,000 (ignore final coupon just now) is $10,000/(1.1^5). In other words, that single chunk of cash is worth 10% less if it's one year away, (1.1)^2 if 2 years away, etc. Draw a timetable with each payment and divide by 1.1 for each year it's away from present. If the 9% coupon is really 4.5% twice a year, it's $450 in 6 month intervals, and each 6 mo interval is really 5% you discount. Short durations like this can be done by hand, a 30 year bond with twice a year payments is a pain. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c5f7796e8581ad364cb3aa2a495ea88",
"text": "\"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a44357a6b5943b6df883337c72a62eb3",
"text": "Basically you need to use a time-value-of-money equation to discount the cashflows back to today. The Wikipedia formula will likely work fine for you, then you just need to pick an effective interest rate to use in the calculation. Run each of your amounts and dates though the formula (there are various on-line calculators to pick from, and sum up the values. You did not mention your location or jurisdiction, but a useful proxy for the interest rate would be the average between the same duration mortgage rate and fixed-deposit rate at your bank; it should be close enough for your purposes - although if an actual lawsuit is involved and the sums high enough to have lawyers, it might be worth engaging an accountant as well to defend the veracity of both the calculation and the interest rates chosen.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "b4ae774d48fa6d2cae21d71ed5c702bf",
"text": "\"A (very) simplified bond-pricing equation goes thus: Fair_Price: {Face_Value * (1 + Interest - Expected_Market_Return) ^ (Years_To_Maturity)} * P(Company_Will_Default_Before_Maturity) To reiterate, that is a very simplified model. But it allows us to demonstrate the 3 key factors that drive \"\"Fair\"\" Value: The interest relative to the current market rate. If your AAA bond yields 1%, but an equally-good AAA bond currently sells at 3% in the market, then the \"\"Equivalent\"\" value is the face value minus 2% (1% - 3%) for every year to maturity. Years to maturity. Because 1) is multiplied for every year to maturity, longer-dated bonds are more sensitive to changes in market rates. If your bond yields 2% less than market but matures in a year, then it's worth $98, but if it matures in 56 years, then it's only worth 0.98^56 = $32. Conversely, if your bond yields more than the market rate, then its' price will be greater than face value. The company might default on the debt. If a Bond has a \"\"Fair\"\" Value of $100, but you think there's a 50% chance that the company will default, then it's only worth $50. In fact, it can be worth even less because getting paid on a defaulted bond can often take time and/or money and/or lawyers. In your case, because your bond matures in 56 years but yields ~5% (well above the current market rate), for it to be below Face value implies a strong probability of default, or a strong belief that market returns will be above 5% over the next 56 years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba304fbf8b1580d1a4cef5833694200f",
"text": "You've got the right idea, except that the stated interest rate is normalized for a 1-year investment. Hence if you buy a 4-week bill, you're getting something closer to 4/52 of what you've computed in your question. More precisely, the Treasury uses a 360 day year for these calculations, so you multiply the stated rate by (number of days until maturity)/360 to get the actual rate of return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ad0143a8523b975c7b299bed7ecf3c",
"text": "\"The rate of the bond is fixed. But there is a risk known as \"\"interest rate risk\"\". Basically, if you have a 2 percent bond and market rates are 4 percent, you'll have to offer your bond at a discount or nobody would buy it. So if you ever needed to sell it, you'd lose a bit of money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1153acc2c4b339189bdcf1f88d1b7e5",
"text": "When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78015aab391f1e140edca5a2b2e7ccb6",
"text": "\"The name of the Gilt states the redemption date, but not the original issue date. A gilt with 8.75% yield and close to its redemption date may have been issued at a time when interest rates were indeed close to 8.75%. For example in the early 1990s, the UK inflation rate was about 8%. One reason for preferring high or low coupon gilts is the trade off between capital gains and income, and the different taxation rules for each. If you buy a gilt and hold it to its maturity date, you know in advance the exact price that it will be redeemed for (i.e. £100). You may prefer to take a high level of income now, knowing you will make a capital loss in future (which might offset some other predictable capital gain for tax purposes) or you may prefer not to take income that you don't need right now, and instead get a guaranteed capital gain in future (for example, when you plan to retire from work). Also, you can use the change in the market value of gilts as a gamble or a hedge against your expectation of interest rate changes in future, with the \"\"government guaranteed\"\" fallback position that if your predictions are wrong, you know exactly what return you will get if you hold the gilts to maturity. The same idea applies to other bond investments - but without the government guarantee, of course.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f70c8c562e977d956ae841fdb3c441b5",
"text": "Your calc is spot on, the output is small because it's just 5 days worth of interest, and at today's low rates that's practically 0. Also the rate you would want to use is money market rates as that's typically where companies will park cash to earn interest since its a highly liquid market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a69573b10bc69c804febd5912f716dc",
"text": "\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82ea0d1ce78d1bcdea1963a057b8a119",
"text": "I wrote one to check against the N3 to N6 bonds: http://capitalmind.in/2011/03/sbi-bond-yield-calculator/ Things to note:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "47ae54c33da604d2225616426525aae9",
"text": "EDIT: After reading one of the comments on the original question, I realized that there is a much more intuitive way to think about this. If you look at it as a standard PV calculation and hold each of the cashflows constant. Really what's happening is that because of inflation the discount rate isn't the full value of the interest rate. Really the discount rate is only the portion of the interest rate above the inflation rate. Hence in the standard perpetuity PV equation PV = A / r r becomes the interest rate less the inflation rate which gives you PV = A / (i - g). That seems like a much better way to get to the answer than all the machinations I was originally trying. Original Answer: I think I finally figured this out. The general term for this type of system in which the payments increase over time is a gradient series annuity. In this specific example since the payment is increasing by a percentage each period (not a constant rate) this would be considered a geometric gradient series. According to this link the formula for the present value of a geometric gradient series of payments is: Where P is the present value of this series of cashflows. A_1 is the initial payment for period 1 (i.e. the amount you want to withdraw adjusted for inflation). g is the gradient or growth rate of the periodic payment (in this case this is the inflation rate) i is the interest rate n is the number of payments This is almost exactly what I was looking for in my original question. The only problem is this is for a fixed amount of time (i.e. n periods). In order to figure out the formula for a perpetuity we need to find the limit of the right side of this equation as the number of periods (n) approaches infinity. Luckily in this equation n is already well isolated to a single term: (1 + g)^n/(1 + i)^-n}. And since we know that the interest rate, i, has to be greater than the inflation rate, g, the limit of that factor is 0. So after replacing that term with 0 our equation simplifies to the following: Note: I don't do this stuff for a living and honestly don't have a fantastic finance IQ. It's been a while since I've done any calculus or even this much algebra so I may have made an error in the math.",
"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": "c3c977ec4a6f2ce7f1d3adc224bc472f",
"text": "\"Usually... I think that's overstating the case. You CAN get a bargain (especially if the place is in not-so-great condition), but not every foreclosure will be a good deal even if it is priced well below its most recently appraised value. As the buyer it's your responsibility to determine whether it's priced well or not, and to decide whether you're willing and able to repair its deficiencies after you buy it. The same's true when purchasing any house; foreclosures just make it more likely that there are problems and (hopefully) wind up being priced to allow for them. I don't know of a single website which lists all foreclosures. Some of the home listing websites do have a \"\"show me foreclosure listings\"\" filter, and I'm sure that the better tools available to real estate agents can select these. But if that's the direction you're interested in going, you should be looking at distressed properties generally, NOT just foreclosures; you may get a better deal, in the long run, by going for the one that has been mechanically maintained but is just plain ugly rather than the one with a pretty skin whose heating system hasn't been serviced for the last decade. Do your homework, shop around, don't fall in love with any one house... all the same rules apply at this end of the spectrum just as strongly as they do in the mid or upper ranges. Perhaps more so. Happy hunting!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7636c9e976891b171727927c528272b2
|
Why REIT prices are not going down while bonds are being hammered?
|
[
{
"docid": "ebcdd8cb3811a53f87160c874a6ec5a7",
"text": "\"There are five main drivers to real estate returns: Income (cash flow from rental payments); Depreciation (as an expense that can be used to reduce taxes); Equity (the gradual paydown of the mortgage the increases underlying equity in the property); Appreciation (any increase in the overall value of the property); Leverage (the impact of debt financing on the deal, increasing the effective \"\"cash-on-cash\"\" return). (Asset Rover has a detailed walk-through of the components, and a useful comparison to stocks) So interest rates are certainly a component (as they increase the expenses), but they are just one factor. Depending on a particular market's conditions, appreciation or rent increases could offset or (exceed) any increase in the interest expense. My own experience is mostly with non-listed REITs (including Reg A+ investments like the ones from Fundrise) and commercial syndicates, and for right now in both cases there's plenty of capital chasing yield to go around (and in fact competition among new funding sources like Reg D and Reg A+ platforms seems to be driving down borrowing rates as platforms compete both for borrowers and for investors). Personally I pay more attention to where each local market (and the broader national market) is along the ~18-year real estate cycle (spoiler: the last trough was 2008...). Dividend Capital puts out a quarterly report that's super useful.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "447ebb07484f3b7068acaeb2d880b27e",
"text": "I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "dae84622294f488ae7fff5c11d07754a",
"text": "That looks like a portfolio designed to protect against inflation, given the big international presence, the REIT presence and TIPS bonds. Not a bad strategy, but there are a few things that I'd want to look at closely before pulling the trigger.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01e86788dc145726cf15fbeaa56990d3",
"text": "Well put and, honestly, seemingly unavoidable. It will be crazy if it truly does come to fruition if they (Fed/Treasury/Gummit) realize that they cannot inflate their way out of this by printing more money and all of the nay-sayers of massive deflation get proven wrong. So, the better question is this: we believe/know it's coming, so how do we prepare and strategically place ourselves to survive/profit/prosper from the coming collapse? As I see it, RE is a crap investment for the foreseeable future as oversupply and oversize are not absorbed. People have to live, so rentals will be key; but, they have already bloomed quite a bit. Stocks will likely trade sideways for awhile before likely tanking as the forced/willing withdrawals start happening from the Boomers. So, keeping it in stocks doesn't sound overly positive, unless a fairly aggressive put strategy is enforced. Bonds are paying crap and, after taxes, barely pacing inflation. For me personally and selfishly, I have 20 years minimum for retirement, so I'm fine qith the market trending sideways or down. It means that I'm getting more bang for my DCA buck and, 20+ years from now, I will be well positioned when the market eventually cycles back up. But, for now, where do we put our investments to protect and, hopefully, grow them as the mid term passes?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1956eda0d10bf584cee552b2658f379d",
"text": "Historically when short term treasuries (maturity less than 5 years) have a higher yield than long term treasuries (10+ years) a recession has followed within a year or so. Don't quote me on the bond maturities and how quickly a recession occurs but it's basically accurate. Edit: we are not there right now but that seems to be the trending direction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aaf2f42c69d1a1d80b68a0ebd347b608",
"text": "The reason the market value is low is because the market does not believe that the company or country will pay. Another reason for it to go down is lack of liquidity in the market. However if you believe that the conditions would improve by the time bond matures, and you don't need money right now, then you can wait for maturity and get the maturity value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb2e4bffc7f11cbfca1c1e9fa37bde29",
"text": "Actually, bond prices are technically high right now, so if and when rates theoretically go up in the future, bond prices will fall. The past 25 years for bonds have been great with falling interest rates, but it's not likely going to continue with rates not able to go any lower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb13206ea224b7582cf0d78ef5c3c875",
"text": "That's not what he's saying at all. Basically most of his argument (4 of 6 points) is the connection between bond prices and equity prices. It's not particularly interesting but it definitely doesn't always apply either. If bond yields fall, then so too should equity earnings yields if spreads remain relatively constant, i.e. higher equity prices. Additionally, if bond yields are low, then any future equity growth gets capitalized at a much higher value because discount rates are much lower. Again, not particularly insightful. The two interesting comments were about oil and cash as a % of assets at financial institutions. Both of these are likely linked to falling or low rates above, because banks can't invest profitably at low rates and hence hold cash and equivalents instead, and oil prices are more likely to fall in a low or falling inflation environment (implied by the low rates or Fed tightening). Really, I think hes's saying something more obvious but not necessarily trivial, which is if one asset class goes up, so too is another related one.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9716a7dae9d0ef47a03d0a17927d78",
"text": "Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9029326b9e5b19d848a42a55f34439f4",
"text": "AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e768a08c0ab799ca0b2022ed60642360",
"text": "But it also can't be 1.46%, because that would imply that a 30Y US Treasury bond only yields 2.78%, which is nonsensically low. The rates are displayed as of Today. As the footnote suggests these are to be read with Maturities. A Treasury with 1 year Maturity is at 1.162% and a Treasury with 30Y Maturity is at 2.78%. Generally Bonds with longer maturity terms give better yields than bonds of shorter duration. This indicates the belief that in long term the outlook is positive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "028f0077a16460f918c8515dff3fc444",
"text": "I know that assets like bonds have prices that have an inverse relationship with interest rates, but what other assets do as well? I'm a bit new to finance and all that so I'm trying to learn. Would real estate prices be high as well? If so, why?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88b56182fbd320688d54f52c8491c84a",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-22/wall-street-banks-warn-winter-is-coming-as-business-cycle-peaks) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > HSBC Holdings Plc, Citigroup Inc. and Morgan Stanley see mounting evidence that global markets are in the last stage of their rallies before a downturn in the business cycle. > Analysts at the Wall Street behemoths cite signals including the breakdown of long-standing relationships between stocks, bonds and commodities as well as investors ignoring valuation fundamentals and data. > Citigroup analysts also say markets are on the cusp of entering a late-cycle peak before a recession that pushes stocks and bonds into a bear market. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6vkwv3/the_next_recession_is_nigh_how_are_you_lads/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~197088 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*: **market**^#1 **stock**^#2 **investors**^#3 **equity**^#4 **U.S.**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2aaca1bc531b6eef0e29db9a819bcf72",
"text": "Bonds can increase in price, if the demand is high and offer solid yield if the demand is low. For instance, Russian bond prices a year ago contracted big in price (ie: fell), but were paying 18% and made a solid buy. Now that the demand has risen, the price is up with the yield for those early investors the same, though newer investors are receiving less yield (about 9ish percent) and paying higher prices. I've rarely seen banks pay more variable interest than short term treasuries and the same holds true for long term CDs and long term treasuries. This isn't to say it's impossible, just rare. Also variable is different than a set term; if you buy a 10 year treasury at 18%, that means you get 18% for 10 years, even if interest rates fall four years later. Think about the people buying 30 year US treasuries during 1980-1985. Yowza. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. Less likely? I don't know about your bank, but my bank doesn't owe $19 trillion.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "78bcb03dd265259fb20c14f4e05e8ea1",
"text": "IMHO bonds are not a good investment at this present time, nor generally. Appreciate for a moment that the yield of an investment is DIRECTLY related to the face/trading value. If a thing (bond/stock) trades for $100 and yields 3%, it pays $3. In the case of a bond, the bond doesn't pay a % amount, it pays a $ amount. Meaning it pays $3. SO, for the yield to rise, what has to happen to the trading price? It has to decrease. As of 2013/14 bonds are trading at historically LOW yields. The logical implication of this is if a bond pays a fixed $ amount, the trading price of the bond has to have increased. So if you buy bonds now, you will see a decrease in its face value over the long term. You may find the first tool I built at Simple Stock Search useful as you research potential investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5eb94df80246aae2b4d230cca77cd1f7",
"text": "It is supported by inflation and historical values. if you look at real estate as well as the stock market they have consistently increased over a long period of history even with short term drops. It is also based on inflation and the fact that the price of land and building material has increased over time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e4fc93efc7b9b3dd5ddccae5d3f5bbd9
|
“Correct” answer on Visa credit quiz doesn't make sense
|
[
{
"docid": "1b1c9133340fee42869349c43fc56188",
"text": "I agree with you. The quiz was looking at it differently, as if you had a huge card balance and were making minimum payments. The fact that I run all my spending through my cards somehow looks like my card payments are 60-70% of my budget. But when you break it out, zero of that is interest, and it's just a budgeting tool.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0b74b6b2fe4896ed623b7cf1fe7886b",
"text": "\"I took the quiz that you linked too and answered with what I considered \"\"ideal\"\" answers with the exception of checking C for that particular question.... The first thing I saw was I needn't have bothered with giving the ideal answer as the result is self graded (paraphrased) as...all \"\"A\"\" great, mostly \"\"A\"\" good, mostly \"\"B\"\" you can do better, any \"\"C\"\" you probably have problems...regardless of your actual answers. Secondly my ideal answers didn't agree with theirs. Finally, neither my ideal nor theirs takes actual circumstances into account. For instance paying off your debt each month: there are quite a few cards that offer zero percent financing for extended periods of time, for those cards the ideal would be for the debt to be paid off before the terms change. Whether that should be steady progression towards zero or a ballon payment at the end, would depend upon your circumstances. In short, look at this quiz as a rough guideline, not a nuanced evaluation of your credit handling capabilities.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f7af3d1c2dec433a728683324a77421b",
"text": "Context clues hun. I was talking about if you go to Chilis and swipe your card for $20 and leave a $5 tip the processing amount the bank takes into account when telling you your available balance is much more likely to be $23 than $25. So the bank knows I went to Chilis the second I swipe my card, but doesnt know the exact amount. I was saying a lot of people dont understand that. They see they spent X at Chilis (processing) and assume it to be fact. I don't understand why you're having such a difficult time with this concept. Also comparing swiping a debit card as credit to writing a check (in terms of when they show up on your account) is a terrible comparison. When a check goes through the accurate balance is taken out all at once a few days later, but when you swipe a debit card as credit a tentative balance is taken out immediately and adjusted to the actual balance when it settles. And calling me ignorant because I don't need the help writing down where my money is at or goes is pretty ironic.",
"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": "d8b02f072b9ce5130ff5a25e31797035",
"text": "\"What's going on here is that Amazon/visa thinks that the money they will earn on average from irresponsible credit card users is more value than 50$ each. This is the same logic that is behind the cash back or airplane point bonuses many credit cards offer, or the \"\"apply and get a free 2-liter of soda\"\" that some stores offer. I would need more information about the card to say whether or not you should apply (What are the fees, if any? What is the interest rate? etc).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4571505cd5e76a598b1090e109add091",
"text": "\"A lot of credit card companies these days uses what they call \"\"daily interest\"\" where they charge the interest rate for the number of days till you pay off what you spent. This allows them to make more money than the \"\"period billing\"\". The idea of credit, theoretically, is that there isn't really a day when you can borrow without paying interest - in theory\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "561e8ba6026d2586bff964f458e1bc4a",
"text": "My guess would be a black American express. Or, the accountants will make them switch out throughout the year to get maximum benefits. Sometimes, 1% maxes out at a certain amount, so they'll use a different CC every quarter or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "323b38fed41115e09a03ec6940c82db9",
"text": "While one credit provider (or credit reference agency) might score you in one way, others may score you differently including treating different things that contribute to your score differently. Different credit providers may also not see all of your credit score as potentially some data may not be available to all credit suppliers. Further too many searches may trigger systems that recognise behavior that is a sign of possible fraudulent activity (such as applying for many items of credit in a short space of time). Whether this would directly affect a score or trigger manual checks is also likely to vary. In situations like this a person could have applied for (say) a dozen credit cards, with all the credit checks being performed before there is any credit history for any of those dozen cards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3231c7537fb00691c38e465d9885fe0c",
"text": "Um really, you expect US to know the answer? Why not ask Wells Fargo? Unless someone here happens to work for WF and has access to the right people, this is more likely a question to send to their support people than to get an answer here that is anything other than a SWAG (and in that line of reasoning, and as a software tester by trade, my money is on the already offered reasoning that it's doing some kind of primative 'bad word' search (probably a regular expression match) and getting a hit on tit. ) In the meantime I suggest an alternative term, how about 'offering'",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "001467b6ee0f5efdbd4ee55a495d55c5",
"text": "Consider that however high your credit score gets, there is a 'worst piece of it'. The automated software will always report your 'weakest' two points, even if they are already at the top 0.0001% of everyone; that's just how it is coded.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad9d64626f90023c966ca639615a523",
"text": "Every reward program has to have a funding source. If the card gives you x percent back on all purchases. That means that their business is structured to entice you to pump more transactions through the system. Either their other costs are lower, or the increased business allows them to make more money off of late fees, and interest. If the card has you earn extra points for buying a type of item or from a type of store (home stores improvement in the Spring), they are trying to make sure you use their card for what can be a significant amount of business during a small window of time. Sometimes they cap it by saying 5% cash back at home improvement stores during the spring but only on the first $1500 of purchases. That limits it to $75 maximum. Adding more business for them, makes more money for them. Groceries and gas are a good year round purchase categories. Yes there is some variation depending on the season, and the weather, but overall there is not an annual cliff once the season ends. Gas and groceries account for thousands of dollars a year these are not insignificant categories, for many families are recession proof. If they perceive a value from this type of offer they will change their buying behavior. My local grocery store has a deal with a specific gas station. This means that they made a monetary deal. Because you earn points at the grocery store and spend points at the gas station, the grocery store is paying some compensation to the gas station every time you use points. The gas station must be seeing an increase in business so theoretically they don't get 100% compensation from the grocery store. In cases where credit cards give airline miles, the credit card company buys the miles from the airline at a discount because they know that a significant number of miles will never be used.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc33fc6324da01017d6a9ea463b94926",
"text": "\"You really don't know how credit scoring works. Let's think about the purpose of a credit score: to assess whether you're a high default risk. A lender wants to know, in this order: Utilization factors into the solvency assessment. If you are at 100% utilization of your unsecured credit, you're insolvent -- you can't pay your bills. If you are at 0%, you're as solvent as you can be. Most people who use credit cards are somewhere in the middle. When a bank underwrites a large loan like a mortgage or car loan, they use your credit score an application information like income and employment history to figure out what kind of loan you qualify for. Credit cards are called \"\"revolving\"\" accounts for a reason -- you're supposed to use them to buy crap and pay your bill in full at the end of the month. My advice to you:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0ac9dae08a62a035add624367c49737",
"text": "I just opened and received my first credit card - Discover IT - I'm a student. How do I do my best with this card? I plan to only use it for gas and groceries and to pay it off every month by the due date. Is this all I need to know to be successful? Also I got a report with it that said my current credit score is 665. I don't know how I have a credit score, all I've ever paid with is cash and my debit card. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f5767d1419297a9b538d367bd4a0332",
"text": "I have a visa with Scotiabank and I purposefully keep a negative balance at times. The guy at the bank said it was a great idea. I have never received a cheque, nor do I want one. The reason is that it allows me to make quick purchases without having to worry about paying back and due dates. Only with large purchases do I allow myself to do that. I still check in with my account every once in a while just to make sure everything is all right. It allows for good money management and piece of mind. I have been doing it for a couple of years and have not been penalized at all. (Wouldn't really make sense to do so though.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "724f4aa42a46fe16ff32b4f2087a57a4",
"text": "I think you're off base here. The bureaus only remove information if the creditor cannot verify any dispute within 30 days, or if the information's super old. If the creditor can provide corrected information, then the credit bureau is required to apply it to its own database. A dispute can be about the entire account, or it can be about payment status within a given span (or spans) of time. Of course, it's the consumer who has to initiate the dispute.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6de9ea271a66d6bf24f1c313723077",
"text": "If you tell the collector that the claim isn't valid, they're obliged to go back to the creditor to verify it. Sometimes that gets a real person, instead of their automatic billing system, to look at the claim, and if you're right, they'll drop it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eea446cbb3ebab34ec08cdc4dd791dde",
"text": "That would have been a good idea. They don't charge interest on a $0 balance, but if you payoff your account after the cycle date, there is a hidden balance and that balance will accrue interest. It is only a few cents a day. I just don't think it is legal for them to refuse to provide you a payoff quote mid cycle. I'm almost certain. When I worked for Discover it was a key point in training to not give the wrong amount and to make sure to use the calculator in the system to quote a daily balance, how much it goes up per day, and how much they should send if they were mailing the payment, giving consideration for the time it takes to receive/process the payment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8cfbf7d1b949bcb41a9af8d35d9d0e58
|
What's The Best Way To Pay Off My Collections?
|
[
{
"docid": "8e5fd44302d6b06495a6279b1431ea87",
"text": "If you can pay it then there's no need to involve a credit counselor. After all, their main role when you use them is to negotiate payments with creditors so you can pay off your debts. In this case you have the funds to pay, so why make it any more complicated than it needs to be? To be honest, a 597 score is going to make it tough for you to find auto financing. Whatever options you find, they'll charge pretty steep interest rates and have high payments because they'll keep you on as short a payment term as your finances will allow. I would strongly suggest that you work on improving your score for awhile before trying to buy a car. If you can, buy a car for cash. You might not get much, but it will solve your transportation problem while you work on resolving your credit issues. Using a credit counselor won't have any impact on your credit score as far as the debts are concerned. What will make a difference is not having them show as open collections, which is pretty bad. You'll still take a hit for having gone to collections in the first place, but paying them off will mitigate at least some of the effect. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f320f4e22c600ae01c275f2a9a878236",
"text": "Pay them off immediately. But, as I note in my article Too Little Debt?, a zero utilization is actually a negative hit. So you want to just use the cards to get over 1%. i.e. if the lines add to $38K, just charge say, gas and some groceries, $100/wk. Pay in full every month. It's the amount on the statement that counts, not the amount carried month to month accruing interest, which, I hope is zero for you from now on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "242d92e6c727e00a512f1db09b611ed6",
"text": "Short Answer Collections agencies and the businesses they collect for are two different animals. If you don't want this to hurt your credit I suggest you deal directly with the hospital. Pay the bill, but prior to paying it get something in writing that specifically says that this will not be reported onto your credit. That is of course if the hospital even lets you pay them directly. Usually once something is sold to a collections company it's written off. Long Answer Credit reports are kind of a nightmare to deal with. The hospital just wants their money so they will sell debt off to collections companies. The collections companies want to make money on the debt they've bought so they will do what ever it takes to get it out of you, including dinging your credit report. The credit bureaus are the biggest nightmare to deal with of all. Once something is reported on your credit history they do little to nothing to remove it. You can report it online but this is a huge mistake because when you report online you wave your rights to sue the credit bureaus if they don't investigate the matter properly. This of course leads to massive amounts of claims being under investigated. So what are your options once something hits your credit history? I know this all sounds bleak but the reason I go into such depth is that they likely have already reported it to the credit bureaus and you just don't see it reported yet. Good luck to you. Get a bottle of aspirin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "976599fd71c2e4a449888f1f62112bab",
"text": "\"There are two solutions. One is financially better, the other is psychologically better. Financially better: You should pay off loans in the order of interest rate, so the 9% first, then the six percent, then the 3-4%. If you pay back $1000, the first one saves you $90 a year in interest, the second saves you $60, the third $30-$40 a year. Every year until everything is paid back. Psychologically better: Some people have psychological problems paying back debt, and it is better for them to pay back small loans first. If you feel better having two loans instead of three, and feeling better makes you able to save money and pay back the other loans, while having three loans would make you depressed and unable to make savings - pay back the smaller loan. If you don't have that kind of problem, use the \"\"financially better\"\" method.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ba4e9b75cd4469b202c5d4dbf60ec8c",
"text": "Get it in writing from the debt collector first that there will be a pay for deletion. This is the most fail safe way that I know to get a collections debt completely removed from a credit report, and also without the chance of it being put back on the report by another agency.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb5454919b0903785ecb70546e8ed198",
"text": "The debt collection agency (DCA) has purchased the debt and has the rights to your original account. The original creditor will have nothing to do with you anymore. If the DCA does not want to work with your payment schedule, simply deposit the money into an account. Don’t touch the money. Hopefully you save enough money soon enough to pay off the debt before it falls off your credit report. If not, well, enjoy the money you saved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9520bf26d6485a6f3ddee445a98cb94a",
"text": "Suing is a legitimate option as well as screening your calls but here's another idea which has personally worked and relates to the collections I did for awhile. Talk with the collector. Outstanding debt gets sold many times and each time a new collector gets their hands on an account they do their due diligence which means calling every single number multiple times. Collectors a looking for consumers who actively evade collections calls for years. My recommendation is to use logic and explain the situation. Give your first name and describe when you received the phone number and then ask a simple question. When in the last 3 1/2 years have you or any collector had a successful hit from this number. They'll respond never in 3 1/2 years. The collector notes the account for themselves and future collectors. Debt collectors are about about making money, not wasting time and they do review all notes pertaining to an account. Will it work? Maybe not but hopefully it will stop the calls with a short conversation. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dab361e12b44fd47f3a4e7acd01692be",
"text": "\"Is it common in the US not to pay medical bills? Certainly not. What some might do, however, is not pay them immediately, with the intent to negotiate them down or get them written off. You can also see if there's a discount for paying immediately - I've had moderate success with this, but it was during a time where we couldn't pay them all immediately, so I was more trying to figure out which ones to pay first rather than just haggling. The obvious risk is that they go to a collections agency and get reported as unpaid debt to your credit. I'm with you, however - it's a service that you received and it should be paid. I must precise that they are wealthy upscale members, who can afford paying these bills. Are you certain that they have large medical bills? I suppose it's possible that they have resources that can negotiate these on their behalf, or they don't care about the impact to their credit score. But to say \"\"no one is doing it here\"\" seems ludicrous.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00bd09a0e1ad8996b87e451d0b0c0dd5",
"text": "This doesn't seem to explain the odd behavior of the collector, but I wanted to point out that the debt collector might not actually own the debt. If this is the case then your creditor is still the original institution, and the collector may or may not be allowed to actually collect. Contact the original creditor and ask how you can pay off the debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6c5cceac93492de6f289f5f98110cd9",
"text": "The first thing you should do, and should have been doing all this time if you weren't, is to take the money you would've paid in the payment plan and set it aside in a separate savings account. If your plan was 2 years, $65 a month, then set that aside, now. That will allow you to be in a better negotiating position when this is finally resolved. It's also possible this takes two years to be resolved - in which case you'll be in position to pay the debt off in full at that point! It's also possible at some point in the future you'll be offered to settle for half or something like that, at which point if you've saved several months of payments that might be more practical to do. As far as what to do about the charges being removed, unless you have a specific reason for believing they're invalid, that's probably impossible. You could go to the Public Service Commission (outlined in this article about making complaints about overcharges from ConEd); it seems like it's probably too late for that, honestly, but who knows. If you'd made more of an effort at the time, it's possible you could've disputed them back then with PSC. And, as far as what to do with requiring written payment plans: absolutely, 100%. I would try to find out why you're not getting the plans. Do they have the wrong address, perhaps? Or is your mail sometimes poorly delivered? Ask them to send it via certified mail (you may be charged a few dollars for this), or ask them to e-mail you a copy while you're on the phone with them (my preferred option). Bill collectors like getting their money, so they ought to help you out with this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6033d64760631640014511388795c1cb",
"text": "The details of credit score calculation tend to change periodically, but the fundamentals are mostly consistent. Pay your bills, keep your average account age high, overpay your credit card minimums, and keep your overall debt low. And do soft pulls on your credit report to see what's happening. First, the simplest route: pay all your bills early or on time. Automatic deduction may be useful in this regard, especially for bills with predictable amounts. A corollary to this tip is to never leave an unpaid bill. What often happens to young people is in the course of moving around they leave the final bill unpaid and it gets reported to collections. Make sure you follow up online with all bills, even after canceling the service. Second, average account age and oldest account age matter. Open an account like a credit card and never close it, so you'll have an older account (hopefully a zero-fee card). Try to keep other accounts open rather than closing them (no need to cancel a zero-fee credit card) so your average account age stays higher. A card that works on internal systems (like a gift card) is not going to show up on a credit report; a card that works like any VISA/MC is likely going to show up. The rule of thumb is if they need your SSN to run a credit check for the application, then the card will appear on a credit report. You can pull your credit report to find out if the card is listed (you may have to allow time for lag before the card appears, but I'm not sure how long that might be). Third, a tip for extra credit score is to pay more than the minimum required on credit card bills. You can achieve this by either using your credit card at least once a month or by leaving a small hanging balance each month so there's always something to overpay next month. Credit card reporting will be either: unpaid, underpaid, minimum paid, or overpaid. Minimum payment helps your score and overpayment helps more. If you can use your credit card every month, that will give you something to overpay every month. Otherwise, you can leave a small debt left on the card but still pay over the monthly minimum. However, your total debt load, especially debt carried on your cards, counts against your score; aim for less than 10% of your limit. Finally, of course, is to pull your credit report periodically. You need to know what others are seeing. Since debt load utilization matters, make sure the reported card maximum is correct on your credit report. Talk to your bank or account issuer if the limit is wrong. If a collection appears, then you need to handle it. Often you can negotiate with the collector, but be careful to negotiate how they will report the resolution. You want them to agree to remove any negative information (either in exchange for payment or because of a mistake). Failing that, you want them to mark it paid in full or satisfied in full; letting them notate your score that you only partially paid is what you want to avoid, since it most signals someone with cash flow problems and credit issues. They control their reporting to credit bureaus, so if the person on the phone demurs, ask to speak to their supervisor or someone with negotiating authority. Try to get any agreements in writing. Remember that your total debt load is a factor in your credit score. Home loans and student loans do affect credit score. If you take on a smaller home loan, then it will affect your credit less harshly (and leave you with smaller monthly payments).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "336c242807b2a76919c7656d1e3db6e5",
"text": "I see some merit in the other answers, which are all based on the snowball method. However, I would like to present an alternative approach which would be the optimal way in case you have perfect self-control. (Given your amount of debt, most likely you currently do not have perfect self-control, but we will come to that.) The first step is to think about what the minimum amount of emergency funds are that you need and to compare this number with your credit card limit. If your limits are such that your credit cards can still cover potential emergency expenses, use all of the 4000$ to repay the debt on the loan with the higher interest rate. Some answer wrote that Others may disagree as it is more efficient to pay down the 26%er. However, if you pay it all of within the year the difference only comes to $260. This is bad advice because you will probably not pay back the loan within one year. Where would you miraculously obtain 20 000$ for that? Thus, paying back the higher interest loan will save you more money than just 260$. Next, follow @Chris 's advice and refinance your debt under a lower rate. This is much more impactful than choosing the right loan to repay. Make sure to consult with different banks to get the best rate. Reducing your interest rate has utmost priority! From your accumulated debt we can probably infer that you do not have perfect self-control and will be able to minimize your spending/maximize your debt repayments. Thus, you need to incentivize yourself to follow such behavior. A powerful way to do this is to have a family member or very close friend monitor your purchase and saving behavior. If you cannot control yourself, someone else must. It should rather be a a person you trust than the banks you owe money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e79d13cec6a0277e23d61b915ae2a5a",
"text": "If you know the amounts that were combined ($5,000 and $7,500 in your example) -- NOT the original loan amounts necessarily -- then you can calculate a payment schedule (in Excel, Google Sheets, online, etc.) using that amount and the interest rate. You can then apply your payments ($100) to that payment schedule, making sure to either accrue interest if your $100 didn't cover the monthly payment, or pay down extra principal if your $100 more than covered the payment. The outstanding principal is the amount left or remaining balance. A program like GnuCash or Quicken makes doing the payment schedule, and applying payments relatively easy to handle. Spreadsheets will require you to have 36 lines (3 years x 12 months) of payment and recalculation detail, but that shouldn't be too much work. To be fair to your mother, make sure you include any partially accrued interest on the full balance when paying it off. Or even better, include a full month's interest in the pay-off amount.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95dcf8a389872b6b5395158b82d9b75c",
"text": "I have this exact same issue. Event the dollar amounts are close. Here is how I am looking at the problem. Option 1: Walk away. Goodbye credit for 7+ years. Luckily I can operate in cash with the extra $800 per month, but should I have a non medical emergency I might be SOL. With a family I am not sure I am willing to risk it. What if my car dies the month after I quit paying and the bank chooses to foreclose? What if my wife or I lose our job and we have no credit to live? Option 2: Short sale. Good if I can let it happen. I might or might not be on the hook for the balance depending on the state. If I am on the hook, okay, suck but I could live. If I am not on the hook, it is going to hurt my credit the same as foreclosure. It isn't easy, you need an experienced real estate agent and a willing bank. Option 3: Keep paying. I am going for this. At the moment I can still afford the house even though it is at the expense of some luxuries in my live. (Cable TV, driving to work, a new computer). I am wagering the market fixes itself in the next several years. Should the S hit the fan in most any manner, the mortgage is the first thing I stop paying. I don't know what other options I have. I can't re-fi; too upside down. I can't sell; the house isn't worth the mortgage (and I don't have the cash for the balance). I can't walk away; the credit hit wouldn't be worth the monthly money gain. I have no emotions about the house. I am in a real bad investment and getting out now seems like a good idea, but I am going to guess that having the house 10 years from now is better than not. I don't care about the bank at all, nor do I feel I owe them the money because I took the loan. They assumed risk loaning me the money in the first place. The minute it gets worse for me than for the bank; I will stop paying. Summary Not much to do without a serious consequence. I would suggest holding out for the very long term if you feel you can. The best way to minimize the bad investment is to ride it out and pray it gets better. I am thinking I am a landlord for the next 10 years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2551584505861e4c97a7fe6477e8276",
"text": "I think I'm reading that you cosigned a loan with a friend, and they've stopped paying on their loan. Not a whole lot of options here. You'll have to pay the loan off by yourself or allow the loan to go into collections in hopes that you'll get more money later and pay it off then. Small claims court is definitely an option at that point. Next time, perhaps try not to cosign loans with friends unless you really trust them and are confident that you can pay the loan off if they cannot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f4879752fac50097965f48da3b171f2",
"text": "Once a debt has gone to a debt collector, you have to work with the debt collector to settle your debt. Essentially, the department store sold your debt to the debt collector so they don't have to deal with it anymore. You have rights when contacted by debt collectors. You can negotiate a deal so that the amount you actually pay is lower than what you owe. It is illegal for them to quote you for a higher amount than what you actually owe! Also, they can't threaten you or pretend to be a credit bureau. Your best bet is to work with them and negotiate a better payment. Don't give up. Collectors often times purchase the debt for a very low amount, so even if you pay less than what you actually owe, the collector will still make a profit. https://www.credit.com/debt/collections-crash-course/",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
457432626aa7dbd31ab71fc7a95c8d6a
|
Ask FBI permission to withdraw large sums from your checking or savings?
|
[
{
"docid": "99002766ca5bf1fc41a7f458e9abb3a7",
"text": "Is it true you have to file papers with the government in the US to withdraw large sums of cash at your local bank branch? It's true that a currency transaction report (CTR) gets filed with FinCEN (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) when you make a cash transaction in excess of $10,000. Banks have systems that do this automatically, so you don't have to really do anything other than provide some tax info if not already on file with the bank. The teller can flag your CTR if they think the transaction is suspicious, but there shouldn't be a delay on the withdrawal unless the bank has to make arrangements to have enough cash on hand. Some people don't like the idea of CTR's being filed and therefore make multiple smaller withdrawals, but that can be considered illegal structuring, and can result in confiscated money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fea71233abf6dbb5f87e8322d8f21fd",
"text": "\"An international Outlook (in this case Sweden in European Union). According to laws and regulations large cash transactions are considered conspicuous. The law makers might have reasoned is that cash transactions can be used in as example: - financing terrorism - avoiding taxes - buying or selling illegal goods such as drugs or stolen items - general illegal transactions such as paying bribes Starting there, all banks (at least in Europe) are required to report all suspicious transactions to the relevant authorities (in Sweden it is Finanspolisen, roughly the Financial Police). This is regardless of how the transactions are performed, in cash or otherwise. In order to monitor this all banks in Sweden are required to \"\"know the customers\"\", as example where does money come from and go to in general. In addition special software monitors all transactions and flags suspicious patterns for further investigation and possibly notification of the police. So, at least in Sweden: there is no need to get permission from the FBI to withdraw cash. You will however be required to describe the usage of the Money and your description will be kept and possibly sent to the Financial police. The purpose is not to hinder legitimate transactions, but to Catch illegal activities.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "df4f61b877d8a4b2a47ea5f22cfe2168",
"text": "\"Let's divide all bank accounts into savings and checking. The main difference is that checking is easy to get money from; savings is hard to get money from. Because of this, the federal Reserve requires that banks keep more money on hand to cover transactions in checking accounts. Here is a related question from a banking customer regarding a recent notice on their bank statement: Deposit Reclassification. It seems that the bank was moving the customer's money between hidden sub accounts to make it look like the checking account was really a savings account and thus \"\"reduce the amount of funds we are required to keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank.\"\" If they didn't have to transfer the money many times the bank could keep less cash on hand. But once they did 5 hidden transactions the rest of the money in the hidden savings account would be moved by the bank. The 6 transaction limit is done to not allow you to treat savings like checking. Here is a relevant quote from the Federal Reserve Savings Deposits Savings deposits generally have no specified maturity period. They may be interest-bearing, with interest computed or paid daily, weekly, quarterly, or on any other basis. The two most significant features of savings deposits are the ‘‘reservation of right’’ requirement and the restrictions on the number of ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals that may be made per month (or per statement cycle of at least four weeks) from the account. In order to classify an account as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the institution must in its account agreement with the customer reserve the right at any time to require seven days’ advance written notice of an intended withdrawal. In practice, this right is never exercised, but the institution must nevertheless reserve that right in the account agreement. In addition, for an account to be classified as a ‘‘savings deposit,’’ the depositor may make no more than six ‘‘convenient’’ transfers or withdrawals per month from the account. ‘‘Convenient’’ transfers and withdrawals, for purposes of this limit, include preauthorized, automatic transfers (including but not limited to transfers from the savings deposit for overdraft protection or for direct bill payments) and transfers and withdrawals initiated by telephone, facsimile, or computer, and transfers made by check, debit card, or other similar order made by the depositor and payable to third parties. Other, less-convenient types of transfers, such as withdrawals or transfers made in person at the bank, by mail, or by using an ATM, do not count toward the six-per-month limit and do not affect the account’s status as a savings account. Also, a withdrawal request initiated by telephone does not count toward the transfer limit when the withdrawal is disbursed via check mailed to the depositor. Examiners should be particularly wary of a bank’s practices for handling telephone transfers. As noted, an unlimited number of telephone-initiated withdrawals are allowed so long as a check for the withdrawn funds is mailed to the depositor. Otherwise, the limit is six telephone transfers per month. The limit applies to telephonic transfers to move savings deposit funds to another type of deposit account and to make payments to third parties.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cd5ba7c07a41a7d559ea2cc272ab4816",
"text": "What?!!! how dare you sir!!! how dare you!!! I'll have you know that the Fed and the Treasury has their back, not to mention Goldman and a number of other banks . . .you know finance is their thang . . .and if you say anything at the UN, you will find your 401K being used as toilet paper in an illegal settlement . .and you will be on food stamps . .then they will kick you in the balls and yell terrorist Woohoooo!!! . .Krav Maga . . .Shekel as a global reserve currency!!! WoooHoooo",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d81ccba684d73402c54dbdbd18286fb3",
"text": "Once you declare the amount, the CBP officials will ask you the source and purpose of funds. You must be able to demonstrate that the source of funds is legitimate and not the proceeds of crime and it is not for the purposes of financing terrorism. Once they have determined that the source and purpose is legitimate, they will take you to a private room where two officers will count and validate the amount (as it is a large amount); and then return the currency to you. For nominal amounts they count it at the CBP officer's inspection desk. Once they have done that, you are free to go on your way. The rule (for the US) is any currency or monetary instrument that is above the equivalent of 10,000 USD. So this will also apply if you are carrying a combination of GBP, EUR and USD that totals to more than $10,000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dda835616037c706767369d1efac27a",
"text": "\"See \"\"Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement prohibited.\"\" You absolutely run the risk of the accusation of structuring. One can move money via check, direct transfer, etc, all day long, from account to account, and not have a reporting issue. But, cash deposits have a reporting requirement (by the bank) if $10K or over. Very simple, you deposit $5000 today, and $5000 tomorrow. That's structuring, and illegal. Let me offer a pre-emptive \"\"I don't know what frequency of $10000/X deposits triggers this rule. But, like the Supreme Court's, \"\"We have trouble defining porn, but we know it when we see it. And we're happy to have these cases brought to us,\"\" structuring is similarly not 100% definable, else one would shift a bit right.\"\" You did not ask, but your friend runs the risk of gift tax issues, as he's not filing the forms to acknowledge once he's over $14,000.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49ea05a94f46ad4c19734fe2d60716fc",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-banks-deposits-idUSKBN1AD1RS) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BRUSSELS - European Union states are considering measures which would allow them to temporarily stop people withdrawing money from their accounts to prevent bank runs, an EU document reviewed by Reuters revealed. > &quot;The desire is to prevent a bank run, so that when a bank is in a critical situation it is not pushed over the edge,&quot; a person familiar with German government&#039;s thinking said. > Existing EU rules allow a two-day suspension of some payouts by failing banks, but the moratorium does not include deposits. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6qliud/surely_the_banks_need_even_more_programs_in_their/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~179489 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*: **bank**^#1 **moratorium**^#2 **run**^#3 **lender**^#4 **fail**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea4c0ee7329add71086fa7685ed6091c",
"text": "It will not be a problem; people regularly move larger sums. It will be reported to law authorities as large enough to be potentially of interest, but since you can explain it that's fine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fd2da9df7baaa52029b315da91a9a2b",
"text": "A) Q1) No, you beat the system, you benefit from flip side of 'use it or lose it' Q2) You need to ask, they may have a $50/week limit, or they may divide the amount you wish by remaining time in year. They may also not let you start till next enrollment period. B) Q1) No, in fact, you just lost $400 that you deposited but didn't spend. Q2) You missed the opportunity to spend an extra $1000 as well, but the loss was opportunity not pocket. Q3) Same as Q2 above, ask them. C) These accounts are not coupled. I'd change the law to do so, however, I am not a congressman.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8dd40fb1bbe9e1ef9bf8c6fa9a1bf9d",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://fortune.com/2017/07/06/coinbase-irs-summons/) reduced by 68%. (I'm a bot) ***** > &quot;DOJ trial attorney Amy Matchison said at a court hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley Thursday that the IRS has been in talks with Coinbase about narrowing its request to only items the agency would need to look for unreported income,&quot; reported The Recorder, a legal site that reported on the hearing. > The agency has stated that only 802 people declared gains or losses related to bitcoin in 2015.In a email, Coinbase declined to comment on the IRS&#039;s reported decision not to seek passwords, and referred Fortune to a blog post from March in which the company said it is pushing the agency to reduce the scope of the probe. > When news of the IRS probe first emerged, some legal observers predicted the agency&#039;s demands for all of Coinbase&#039;s customer records was just a negotiating tactic, and that it would ultimately ask for only a portion of them. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6lsekz/irs_says_it_will_limit_bitcoin_auditsbut_only_a/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~161341 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*: **Coinbase**^#1 **IRS**^#2 **agency**^#3 **customer**^#4 **account**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "687078fc826e04e4bfd6ee8194bd7436",
"text": "I'm in Argentina and they limit the daily withdrawals to 1000 pesos a day (about $220). The gov't just put limits on withdrawing dollars here, which is how Argentines have typically saved their money. The people are NOT happy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "19d3ffbf25f029a62e64a1f8ee210b01",
"text": "Money laundering alarms would definitely be raised, way before you walking in with the cash to deposit. Every cash transaction over $10K will be reported by the bank (and not only banks have to report), so the report will be sent when you withdraw the money, as well. But if the money is legitimately yours and you can show the sources, then you shouldn't be worried. There's no law against having cash. Its just very hard to track down the cash money sources, and if someone asks you and you cannot show the proofs - the problem would definitely be yours.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1884d09a6e7e4786e5ba73997559dc1b",
"text": "In the united states, they may request a check written by the bank to the other party. I have had to make large payments for home settlements, or buying a car. If the transaction was over a specified limit, they wanted a cashiers check. They wanted to make sure it wouldn't bounce. I have had companies rebate me money, and say the maximum value of the check was some small value. I guess that was to prevent people from altering the check. One thing that has happened to me is that a large check I wanted to deposit was held for a few extra days to make sure it cleared. I wouldn't have access to the funds until the deadline passed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ef24b9344ccc852089a07c402321f17",
"text": "Just so you know, the SEC doesn't have criminal authority, they do civil fines. It's the Department of Justice that sends white collar criminals to jail. If you'd like to see what they've been up to, [here's a little info from the FBI](http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/financial-crimes-report-2010-2011) Also, I could be wrong but I think the government mass settled the claims coming from the financial collapse. *edit: you don't get to keep the money you made from your illegal activity. That would just be stupid. The fines are on top of giving the money back* *edit 2: remember [these girls?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihLBCbNIDbI&feature=share). They didn't get to keep the money they stole. It's no different in white collar crime.*",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c1e5f7c7acf12b8ee23c673cd73e1487",
"text": "How do I withdraw a large sum from my bank and give it to a money management firm? Either write a check to the Money Management firm or wire transfer the funds to the account mentioned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1969206b2133cfe3e0d1ff515eb4a770",
"text": "Making a payment of any amount is usually legal, although of course the specific circumstances matter, and I'm not qualified to give legal advice. Just had to throw in that disclaimer not because I think there's a problem here, but because it is impossible to give a definite answer to a legal question in a specific situation on Stack Exchange. But the government will be involved. There are two parts to that. First, as part of anti-money-laundering laws, banks have to report all transactions above a certain limit; I believe $10k. When you use a check or similar to pay, that happens pretty much automatically. When making a cash payment, you may have to fill out some forms. An secondly, Edward Snowden revealed that the government also tapped into banking networks, so pretty much every transaction is recorded, even if it is not reportable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a980cf6b39eb272d0d8c2a02cba413",
"text": "\"A savings account and a checking account (or a \"\"demand\"\" account, or a \"\"transactional\"\" account) have different regulations. For example, fractional reserve requirements are 10% against checking accounts, but 0% against savings accounts. The theory is that savings accounts are sticky, while checking accounts are hot money. So the Fed wants to stop banks from creating accounts that are regulated as savings accounts but have the features of checking accounts. In the past, this was done by forbidding banks to pay interest on checking accounts. They eliminated that rule back in the inflation years, and instead imposed the rule that to qualify as a savings accounts for regulatory purposes, banks must discourage you from using them as transactional accounts. For example, by limiting the number of withdrawals per month that can be made from a savings account. If the Fed gave up on trying to enforce a distinction, I suspect there would soon no longer be a distinction.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7fedce5378b167eae69b54a02266f731
|
How to spend more? (AKA, how to avoid being a miser)
|
[
{
"docid": "f1d2295d32b48161d6f25fb7ba05e92e",
"text": "\"I spend hours researching two comparable products to try to save $3. Me too! I have also argued for hours with customer support to get $5/month off a bill (that's $60/year!), and I feel guilty every time I eat out or do something remotely luxurious, like getting fries with my $1 McChicken. Geez, even when I play video games, I hate spending the in-game currency. For me, it's obsessive-compulsive traits that cause it, but please note that I'm not claiming @Eddie has them. Just speaking for myself here, but I hope it helps. I still struggle with my miserliness, but I can share what works for me and what doesn't. I don't think I'm valuing my time nearly as much as I should. Me neither, but knowing that doesn't help; it makes it worse. For me, putting a dollar amount on how much I value my time does not work because that just complicates the problem and amplifies how much time I spend solving that multi-variable optimization problem. Consider trying to convince Monk not to avoid germs in order to build antibodies; it just makes him think more about germs, raising anxiety and making easy decisions (use a handkerchief to touch doorknobs) into a hard decision (should I touch it or should I not?). It also amplifies the regret whenever you finally make a certain choice (\"\"what if I did the calculation wrong?\"\" or \"\"what if I'm going to get sick tomorrow because I touched that doorknob?\"\"). Making the problem more complicated isn't the solution. So how to make it simpler? Make the decision ahead of time! For me, budgets are the key to reducing the anxiety associated with financial decision making. Every six months or so, my wife and I spend hours deciding how much to spend per month on things. We can really take our time analyzing it because we only have to do it occasionally. Once we set $50/month for restaurants, I no longer have to feel like a loser every time we eat out -- similarly for discretionary spending and everything else. TBH, I'm not sure exactly why it works -- why I don't regret the dollar amounts we put on every budget -- but it really does help. I join my coworkers for lunch on Fridays because I already decided that was okay. At that point, I can focus my OC-tendencies on eating every last gram of organic matter on my plate. Without directly touching the ketchup bottle, of course. :) Again, just speaking for myself, but having budgets has done wonders for my stress level with respect to finances. For me, budgets are less about restricting my spending and more about permitting me to spend! It's not perfect, but it helps. (Not that it's relevant, but I reworded this answer about 20 times and only hit 'Post' with great effort to suppress the need to keep editing it! I'll be refreshing every 30 seconds for updates.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1940207b9d487c29859fb32ca17e83d",
"text": "The key question is this - What brings you happiness? How much is this behavior actually making you miserable? It's possible, and important, to find balance between frugality and as you say, being a miser. It's also important to understand the diminishing return, and to value not just your hour of time but your happiness-hour. By this I mean there's a distinction between an hour arguing with a customer service rep and spending an hour on a project yourself. There are countless people who push a lawn mower around every Saturday even though they have the money to hire a mowing company. Fresh air, exercise, quiet time, for them it makes sense. We pick and choose. The happy mower is in a good place. The miserable mower who hates doing it and just won't spend the money, not so much. Frugal simply means not wasteful, but it can be misunderstood to mean cheap. When our brand of TP is on sale, I'll use coupons, and stock up. Unless you visited and peeked into a cabinet, all seems normal. A visit to a friend's summer home taught us the value of packing a few rolls for a weekend visit into the unknown. Her cheap brand was like sandpaper and every item in her house was a strange brand I'd never heard of, including food items well beyond expiration. She took cheap to a new level. In the end, this question is less about finance than about psychology.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92fd2c253236db4d8fd3fa81d5a83dc3",
"text": "\"Unless your stinginess has reach truly compulsive levels, it should be enough to consciously remind yourself of the value of your time when you make purchase decisions or find yourself chasing minor savings. Another way might be to deliberately give yourself a monthly or weekly budget that you're allowed to \"\"waste\"\" on luxuries and conveniences without worrying.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f51942b94ba5b0697aad3dd292cdba5",
"text": "There was a study last year -- it was all over the news -- that concluded that experiences, not stuff, is what makes people happy. The satisfaction from going on vacation lasts even after the holiday is long over. That new gadget only gives fleeting satisfaction. To that end, I recommend splurging on the affordable luxuries that give you a better experience. For example, I'm a big believer in paying the skycap a few dollars to check my bags at the curb rather than wait in line at the airport because I HATE airports. Valet parking is another affordable luxury when the alternative is circling a busy parking lot for 15 minutes. Pay for the better seats at the show. Get a room at the nicer hotel. Eat out a bit more often. I can't imagine willingly spending hours with customer support, though. They can have my $5.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc7a9ca4ef430454530cd472cd38ccca",
"text": "\"I agree with JoeTaxpayer's answer. The question you should be asking is not \"\"how do I spend more\"\" but \"\"how do I become happier\"\". From what you say, it may be that you could increase your happiness simply by cutting back on these aggressive attempts to save a few bucks here and there. At the same time, if you do this, on some level your personality is probably not the type that would allow to simply \"\"forget it\"\". I think many frugal people are somewhat as you describe: they don't like wasting money. In such cases, often what matters is not so much the actual saving money as the feeling of saving money. Therefore, I'd suggest that you take a look at which of the \"\"money-losing\"\" activities you mention are really worth it. The easiest ones to drop would be things like the home-improvement project, which even you acknowledge does not save you money. If you like saving money, give yourself a pat on the back when you hire the contractor. If you want, run the numbers so you can \"\"prove\"\" to yourself how much money you are saving by not doing the work. For some of the other things, it may be that spending time to save a small amount can \"\"gamify\"\" an everyday experience and make it more interesting. For instance, comparing products to save a few bucks is not necessarily bad unless you actually don't like doing it. If spending a few hours comparing two toaster ovens on Amazon or whatever makes you feel good, go for it; it's no worse than spending a few hours watching TV. By acknowledging that you get something out of it --- the feeling of getting a bargain --- and savoring that, you can feel better about, and also potentially \"\"get it out of your system\"\" so that you won't feel the need to do it for every little thing. We all have our little pet obsessions, and it's possible to acknowledge that they're irrational, while still accepting them as part of your personality, and finding a way to satisfy them in a controlled manner that doesn't stress you out too much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "704b2bcb28d2999847a056b205a74490",
"text": "Do you plan a monthly budget at the beginning of each month? This might seem counter-intuitive, but hear me out. Doing a budget is, of course, critically important for those who struggle with having enough money to last the month. Having this written spending plan allows people struggling with finances to control their spending and funnel money into debt reduction or saving goals. However, budgeting can also help those with the opposite problem. There are some, like you perhaps, that have enough income and live frugally enough that they don't have to budget. Their money comes in, and they spend so little that the bank account grows automatically. It sounds like a good problem to have, but your finances are still out of control, just in a different way. Perhaps you are underspending simply because you don't know if you will have enough money to last or not. By making a spending plan, you set aside money each month for various categories in three broad areas: Since you have plenty of money coming in, generously fund these spending categories. As long as you have money in the categories when you go to the store, you can feel comfortable splurging a little, because you know that your other categories are funded and the money is there to pay those other bills. Create other categories, such as technology or home improvement, and when you need an app or have a home improvement project, you can confidently spend this money, as it has already been allocated for those purposes. If you are new to budgeting, software such as YNAB can make it much easier.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cae8238f6e26c4d379e57e9b1da0a6c",
"text": "How much is your time worth This has been useful for me, judging things based on how much their time value is worth to me, weighted more heavily than their actual worth. For instance, there was a time when I used to work on the weekends and pay to have my laundry done. Doing the laundry myself would have cost 25 cents, but taken two hours at least. Since I was making $45 an hour, I would have lost $90 dollars by doing my laundry, instead of paying specialists $28 to do it for me, much better than I would. Your own capital should begin growing at a rate that makes many MANY things worth less than the time it takes for you to entertain it. So in your cable bill example, you shouldn't have argued for a $5 credit for two hours, unless you make $2.25 an hour, after tax. This is simplistic, as you would extrapolate how much this would cost you over a year or two, but such cost benefit analysis' become easy with this simple concept. This can also be used to rationalize your lavish expenditures. Such as not really comparing the costs for a flight, because its a 2 hour flight for $400 and you've found yourself making at least $200 an hour with your $416,000 annual earnings and capital gains. This will cure your frugality while retaining safe guards on your spending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b0b1662223cd3d9bf0a33e0ed7541c2",
"text": "\"It took me a very longtime to learn that I no longer need to live like a starving student... and even now I live like a well-off student. And that's OK -- my needs and tastes are mostly simple. There's no reason to spend just for the sake of spending... but if you want something, and really can afford it after setting aside savings for retirement and emergency funds and basic operating capital, go for it. It may help to pick out a specific thing you want, or want to replace. My \"\"rules\"\" used to say that i was always allowed to spend money on books, music, and needed tools. Then i convinced myself that shelves are tools for storing other things. And that furniture is shelving for people. And that art, if it really speaks to me, is akin to books. And that a decent instrument is a tool. And that my time has value, so sometimes it's less expensive in real term to throw money at a problem rather than scheduling my life around it. One step at a time, with all the steps making sense. I will still spend entirely too long agonizing over minor purchases, at times -- but that's about convincing myself that I like the choice I'm making, not about the price per se. Meanwhile, saving means you can buy things later without having to borrow. The semi-student routine , and waiting until i was ready to buy,is why i had the value of a house in my investments when i was ready to buy one. And is why I'm almost at my target number for retirement well before my planned retirement date. One other thought: if you're comfortable buying gifts for others but don't tend to spend on yourself, you aren't a miser -- just frugal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b718c8aa9240615207dfbafc883209",
"text": "\"@pyb is right - you should put an hourly dollar value on your time. Calculate a realistic number and keep it in the back of your mind. Then when you're looking for a discount or a saving, estimate the maximum amount that you'd be able to save. This should be a realistic proportion of the value of the item. From those figures you can get the maximum amount of time that you should spend on looking for that discount. Spend any more than that amount of time and you lose money even if you get the discount. So then you can end up with a few rules-of-thumb like \"\"don't spend more than x minutes of time per dollar of possible savings\"\". Then you can spend the spare time you've created on looking for savings on big-ticket items where the time is more efficiently used... or on studying to upgrade your earning potential... or on taking some time out to enjoy the world and sniff the flowers. :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7aecd12e2a8444b2412e51189811e120",
"text": "here is what I have learned with multiple close encounters with bankruptcies: ask yourself.. what if I save vs what if I spend? say you like a new shirt.. ask yourself what can you do saving $40 vs rewarding yourself/your well wishers right away? you will end up spending. just like you the other person needs money. he/she is doing a work. ask yourself what if you are in his/her situation. you would obviously want others to be happy. so spend. I think these two should be good. I must add that you should NOT be wasteful. Eg.. buying a handmade shoes vs corporation made shoes? choose handmade one because it fits above two. buying a corporate one would be more polluting and less rewarding because you just gave your money to someone who already has lots and cares least about you. in what way are you saying mortgage is good? I see that as a waste. you can pay back your mortgage only when someone takes even bigger mortgage (check with some maths before refuting)... in other words you have taken part in ponzi scheme.! I would suggest making a house vs buying one is better spending. finally spending is a best saving.. don't forget that you are getting money only because someone is spending wisely. stop feeding your money to corporates and interests and everyone will have plenty to spend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "788e18ecb887a339b6a0a0762d831ea6",
"text": "\"People who choose \"\"good enough\"\" (satisficers) tend to be happier than people who choose \"\"the best\"\" (maximizers), see link. So decide you want to be a satisficer for most decisions, and then work at it: deliberately limit the amount of time you spend on a small decision, and celebrate a non-optimal decision. Decide to be good to yourself, and say it out loud. Practice the skill.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fb6e3debf2ba6d6256e111b8ef715e8",
"text": "Hehe, I feel your pain.. well, 'pain' isn't really the feeling though is it. I was unemployed for several years when I was younger, and I loved it. It taught me 2 things: you need to be careful with your money, and you don't need money to be happy. I loved the freedom, the carefree attitude I had to the world, the ability to do many things not constrained by having to spend all day in an office, to be with my mates a lot. If your problem is that you are being too miserly ($3 researching better product... we all do that, though not for $3 except on ebay sometimes) then put a cost on your time. If it took you 3 hours to research the $3 saving, and your time is worth even just $10 an hour to you, then you've not saved anything. You've wasted 'money'. If, on the other hand, you're more worried about hoarding money and being unproductive and a bad social citizen, get involved in investing it instead. Let someone else put it to good use, whilst giving you some return.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6dab7f6b4d91e503bbe9c02fa010cb66",
"text": "\"Ultimately, money derives its value from being spend on a good or service. Investing it is an act of denying your present-self a good or service so that your future-self can obtain (hopefully more) goods or services. Investing is a sensible and responsible default position, but you clearly have passed the point at which the opportunity cost of the dollar not spent today is greater than its benefit in the future. Not all dollars are the same. Remember that money is a temporary store of value but you have to spend it to realize that value. In your search, learn about the \"\"psychology of money.\"\" What are you saving it for? How much do you want left over when you die? If you die tomorrow, will you regret not having spend a little more? I'm sorry to get morbid on you, but saving for the future requires answering the question \"\"How long?\"\" and it's never forever. This may be tangential but it shaped my behaviour towards money nonetheless: Frank Zimbardo on The Psychology of Time. I would hazard a guess and say that you land in the future-oriented camp.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cff924bf336b0d314c3779c3ee756c30",
"text": "Time is money. If those hours spent researching to save $3 made you a better profit than you would have otherwise had buying the more expensive product and using the rest of the time to make more than $3, then you came out on top. If you consider this general premise in every spending decision you make, you should always feel that you made the right choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e98e750e46a00a99b67ba8e983c4bb3d",
"text": "Maybe minimalism is an option for you. Make your self clear what you really want You only buy what you really need and for that you spend the money. Then there is no point of saving money, i.e. I for example like to invite friends and cook them some fancy diner with expensive products, but the value I get from that exceeds any money I spend. On the other hand most present are the opposite, they have less value to recipient than what they originally have costs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "5a709748c1e96a752fe134116569609c",
"text": "\"In these situations, one solution is to use the \"\"I was just about to ask you the same thing...\"\" response. This is kind of a famous way to deal with people asking you for money, whether it's someone asking to borrow \"\"$10 at lunch time\"\" or \"\"$3000 for a car\"\" or the like. So: Person X asks you for money, say $2000. Your reply: Ah, that's bad luck, I was just about to ask you the same thing... Follow this immediately - just keep talking - by launching in to a really incredibly detailed discussion of why you need to borrow money (pick a slightly larger amount, slet's ay $3500). Just \"\"keep talking\"\" and don't let the other person get a word in. Go in to great detail about just what you need the $3500 for and why. It's a good trick.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7601e04f3bc71c067101f24687e82a63",
"text": "Track your expenses. Find out where your money is going, and target areas where you can reduce expenses. Some examples: I was spending a lot on food, buying too much packaged food, and eating out too much. So I started cooking from scratch more and eating out less. Now, even though I buy expensive organic produce, imported cheese, and grass-fed beef, I'm spending half of what I used to spend on food. It could be better. I could cut back on meat and eat out even less. I'm working on it. I was buying a ton of books and random impulsive crap off of Amazon. So I no longer let myself buy things right away. I put stuff on my wish list if I want it, and every couple of months I go on there and buy myself a couple of things off my wishlist. I usually end up realizing that some of the stuff on there isn't something I want that badly after all, so I just delete it from my wishlist. I replaced my 11-year-old Jeep SUV with an 11-year-old Saturn sedan that gets twice the gas mileage. That saves me almost $200/month in gasoline costs alone. I had cable internet through Comcast, even though I don't have a TV. So I went from a $70/month cable bill to a $35/month DSL bill, which cut my internet costs in half. I have an iPhone and my bill for that is $85/month. That's insane, with how little I talk on the phone and send text messages. Once it goes out of contract, I plan to replace it with a cheap phone, possibly a pre-paid. That should cut my phone expenses in half, or even less. I'll keep my iPhone, and just use it when wifi is available (which is almost everywhere these days).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51f990657b459bb34ba495a7383ccfe3",
"text": "To me the key is a budget. Each month, before it begins, decide on what to spend on each dollar that you earn. Money should be allotted for normal expenses such as housing, food, transportation, and utilities. If you have any consumer debt that should be a priority. Extra money should go to eliminate that debt. There should be money allotted to savings goals (such as retirement, home down payment, or vacation home). Also there should be money set aside for clothing and giving. Giving is an important part and often overlooked part of wealth creation. Somewhere in there you should also give yourself a bit of free money. For example one of the things I spend my free money on is coffee. I buy freshly ground coffee from a really good supplier. It is a bit expensive, but that is okay as it does not preclude me from meeting other goals. If you still have money left after all of that increase your giving some, your savings some, and your free money some. You can then spend that money without guilt. If your budget includes $100 of free money per month, and you want something that costs $1000, save up the $1,000 and then buy it. Do not borrow to buy free money stuff! Doing those sorts of things will make you weigh purchasing decisions very carefully. If you find that you cannot stick to a budget, you should enlist a friend to be your accountability partner. They have to be very good with money.",
"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": "3d4199c0128572c50ece971a7a9078e1",
"text": "\"If you're looking for an analogy or exercise, I saw a personal finance show that had people climb stairs, with the debt as weight. Every flight of stairs more \"\"interest\"\" and loans to cover income gaps have to be added to the total debt they carry up the stairs. Can't find the video online though. But I think you need to ask your brother what he thinks his problem is, that will be solved with more loans. It's likely that your brother's problem can't be solved with advice. Since he's not spending rationally, rational arguments have no sway. I suspect he'll tell you his problem is one or two angry creditors, perhaps even ones you don't know about, rather than a fundamental imbalance between income and expenses. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or moving weights from one backpack compartment to another, doesn't solve the underlying problems. Whatever you do, another loan from you should be off the table. He's an adult now, with problems the size of which you can't help with. We both know how his story ends: all creditors cut him off, and he's in court over garnished wages and creditors fighting over his assets. Reality is the only argument that will have any sway. He's far too personally invested in his scheme to admit defeat, which is why neither words not images nor moving pictures will help him with this learning disability.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "125affbda803ce37568e01e5254d56ba",
"text": "\"Its really, really good of you to admit your short comings with a desire to improve them. It takes courage. Keep in mind that most of us that answer questions here are really \"\"good at money\"\" so we have a hard time relating. Would you want people that are bad with money answering questions on a personal finance site? While it is intimidating you will need a budget. A budget is simply a plan for how to spend your money. Your budget, based on your new pay frequency, will likely also need some cash flow planning as a single paycheck is unlikely to cover your largest expenses. For example your rent/mortgage might be less than a single paycheck so you will have to save money from the previous paycheck to have enough money to pay it. Your best bet is to have a friend or relative that is good with money help you setup a budget. Do you have one? If not you might inquire about a church or organization that offers Financial Peace University. The teachers of the class often help people setup a budget and might be willing to do so for you. You could also take the class which will improve your money management skills. For $100 you'll have a lifetime pass to the class. If it helps you avoid three late charges/bounce checks then the class is well worth it. Now as far as spending too much money. I would recommend cash, but you have to do it the right way. Here is the process that you have to follow to be successful with cash: Doing cash will give you a more concrete example of what spending means. It won't work if you continue to hit the ATM \"\"for just $20 more\"\". It will take you a bit to get used to it, but you will be surprised how quickly you improve at managing money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a816d89279fc582023e15c450eb92628",
"text": "\"There's plenty of advice out there about how to set up a budget or track your expenses or \"\"pay yourself first\"\". This is all great advice but sometimes the hardest part is just getting in the right frugal mindset. Here's a couple tricks on how I did it. Put yourself through a \"\"budget fire drill\"\" If you've never set a budget for yourself, you don't necessarily need to do that here... just live as though you had lost your job and savings through some imaginary catastrophe and live on the bare minimum for at least a month. Treat every dollar as though you only had a few left. Clip coupons, stop dining out, eat rice and beans, bike or car pool to work... whatever means possible to cut costs. If you're really into it, you can cancel your cable/Netflix/wine of the month bills and see how much you really miss them. This exercise will get you used to resisting impulse buys and train you to live through an actual financial disaster. There's also a bit of a game element here in that you can shoot for a \"\"high score\"\"... the difference between the monthly expenditures for your fire drill and the previous month. Understand the power of compound interest. Sit down with Excel and run some numbers for how your net worth will change long term if you saved more and paid down debt sooner. It will give you some realistic sense of the power of compound interest in terms that relate to your specific situation. Start simple... pick your top 10 recent non-essential purchases and calculate how much that would be worth if you had invested that money in the stock market earning 8% over the next thirty years. Then visualize your present self sneaking up to your future self and stealing that much money right out of your own wallet. When I did that, it really resonated with me and made me think about how every dollar I spent on something non-essential was a kick to the crotch of poor old future me.\"",
"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": "f95098e67fcd7635e3e6cf608ddf168c",
"text": "\"First of all, I have to recognize up front that my \"\"spending personality\"\" is frugal. I don't recreational shop, and I save a lot of my total income. Building a budget and sticking to it is difficult, especially for people who are closer to living paycheck to paycheck than I. Theoretically, it should be easy to stick to a budget by overestimating expenses, but for many people planning to spend more than necessary isn't a luxury available. That said, I have a system that works for me, maybe it can work for you. This system lets me see how much I have to spend, and close to optimally arranges assets. As you can see, this system relies on some pretty strong upfront planning and adherence to the plan. And what you might not realize is that you can deviate from the plan in two ways: by spending variations and by timing variations. Credit should really help with a lot of the timing variations; it takes a series of expenses and translates them into one lump payment every month. As for spending variations, like spending 20 dollars for lunch when you only budgeted 5, it turns out this technique helps a lot. Some academic work suggests that spending with plastic is more likely to blow your budget than cash, unless you make detailed plans. But it sounds like your main problem is knowing whether you can afford to splurge. And the future minimum balance of your checking account can be your splurge number.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aae546b5470c00e9891756d61c392a0",
"text": "\"Great question. There are two ways to increase the amount of money you have: It's difficult to decrease your expenses past a certain point, and your question is focused on the first aspect anyway. But it's worth noting that controlling spending is a significant part of accumulating wealth. You need to make more money, and there's no trick to it. Ask for a raise, sure, that can't hurt. But also think about what you need to do to get a higher-paying job. There's a lot to think about: Does you current job have growth potential? Are you doing everything you can do to maximize that potential? If you're just phoning it in and collecting your paycheck, that's not going to make you much more money. But if you're working hard, learning new skills, and have an opportunity to grow into more responsibilities and more money, that's a good start. In my experience, the biggest paycheck increases have come from looking for new opportunities and switching jobs. (BTW, I'm not suggesting quitting your job. You need to always have the new job locked up before quitting the old job!) The wealthiest people I know are self-employed, and they worked hard to build up their companies. Do you work in an industry where you can build your skills to a point where you can go out on your own? Does entrepreneurship interest you? Either way, focus on your job, skills, and maximizing your income potential. Be your own advocate. Make sure your boss knows what a good job you're doing. If you need to start looking for other options, take your time and start looking. The often-quoted line, \"\"the harder I work, the luckier I get\"\" is appropriate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c857568e16c52860e638a12be35abfa",
"text": "\"Keep track of everything you buy. Write it down and be accountable. Try not to buy anything on credit cards, if the money is not in your account now then you can't afford it. Ask yourself whether what you're buying is a \"\"need\"\" or a \"\"want\"\". If you find that you are buying things because you are bored and you like shopping then try taking up a (cheap) hobby that fills that void and is something you enjoy doing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d05671fdb3c36883abcde29fd83fabc",
"text": "I make it a habit at the end of every day to think about how much money I spent in total that day, being mindful of what was essential and wasn't. I know that I might have spent $20 on a haircut (essential), $40 on groceries (essential) and $30 on eating out (not essential). Then I realize that I could have just spent $60 instead of $90. This habit, combined with the general attitude that it's better to have not spent some mone than to have spent some money, has been pretty effective for me to bring down my monthly spending. I guess this requires more motivation than the other more-involved techniques given here. You have to really want to reduce your spending. I found motivation easy to come by because I was spending a lot and I'm still looking for a job, so I have no sources of income. But it's worked really well so far.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f74e0f2510e2c556ac7aaa5dbe9e819",
"text": "\"If you are just barely scraping by on your current income, then you shouldn't be thinking about buying a car or house unless you can present (at least to yourself) clear evidence that doing so will actually lower your monthly expenses. Yes, there are times when even buying depreciating assets such as a car can lower your expenses, but you need to think hard about whether that is the case or if it is just something you want to get because you feel you \"\"should\"\". Remember the old adage that rich people buy themselves income streams (investments that either earn money or reduce expenses), while poor people buy expenses. If you are in the situation of barely scraping by on your current income, then the first step in my mind is to find out exactly what you are spending your money on (do this for a month or two, and then try to include non-regular or rarely-occuring bills such as subscriptions, insurance, perhaps utilities, and so on). Once you know where your money is going right now, outline that in a budget. At this point, you aren't judging your spending, but rather simply looking at the facts. Once you have a decent idea of where your money is going, only then try to think about what you can cut back on. Some things will be easier than others to change (it's much easier to cancel a premium TV channels package than to move to cheaper living quarters, for example, although in some cases simply picking the low-hanging fruit alone won't help you). Make a revised budget for the next month based on the new numbers, and try to live by it. Keep writing down what you actually spend your money on, then rinse and repeat. (Of course, you can make a budget for whatever period of time works for you; if you get paid every two weeks, budgeting per two weeks might be easier than budgeting per month.) The bottom line is that a budget is useless without a follow-up process to see how well your spending actually matches the budgeted amounts, so you need to spend some time following up on it and making adjustments. No budget will ever match reality exactly; think of the budget as a map, not a footstep-by-footstep guide for getting from A to B. When you find some wiggle room in your budget (for example, let's say you decide to cancel the premium TV channels package you got some time ago because it turns out you aren't watching much TV anyway), don't put that money into a \"\"discretionary spending\"\" category. There is an old rule in personal finance that says pay yourself first. If you are able to find $5/month of wiggle room, put it into savings of some kind. If you are unsure what kind of savings vehicle you should use, I'd suggest starting off with a simple savings account; it certainly won't earn you a great return (you'll be lucky if you can keep up with inflation), but it will get you into the habit of saving which at this point is a lot more important. And make that savings transfer as soon as the money hits your account. If you can, get the depositor to put a portion of your income directly into the savings account; if you cannot, make the transfer yourself immediately afterwards. And try to force yourself to live with the money that's left, not touching the savings account. Ideally, you should save a decent fraction of your income - I've seen figures everywhere from 10% to 25% of your after-tax income recommended by various people - and start out by budgeting that to savings and then working with whatever is left. In practice, saving anything and putting the money anywhere is much better than saving nothing. Just make sure that the savings are liquid (easy to convert to cash and withdraw without a penalty, should the need arise), set up a regular bank transfer for whatever amount you can find in that budget, and try to forget about it until you get the bank statement for the savings account and get that warm, fuzzy feeling for actually having a decent amount of money set aside should something ever happen making you need it. Then, later, you can decide whether to use the money to buy a car, start a company, take early retirement, or something entirely different. Having the money will give you the options, and you can decide what is more important to you yourself. Just keep on saving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a6fed25c052bb6f17e2cefe0c453afae",
"text": "\"Make a list of all your expenses. I use an Excel spreadsheet but you can do it on the back of a napkin if you prefer. List fixed expenses, like rent, loan payments, insurance, etc. I include giving to church and charity as fixed expenses, but of course that's up to you. List regular but not fixed expenses, like food, heat and electricity, gas, etc. Come up with reasonable average or typical values for these. Keep records for at least a few months so you're not just guessing. (Though remember that some will vary with the season: presumably you spend a lot more on heat in the winter than in the summer, etc.) You should budget to put something into savings and retirement. If you're young and just starting out, it's easy to decide to postpone retirement savings. But the sooner you start, the more the money will add up. Even if you can't put away a lot, try to put away SOMETHING. And if you budget for it, you should just get used to not having this money to play with. Then total all this up and compare to your income. If the total is more than your income, you have a problem! You need to find a way to cut some expenses. I won't go any further with that thought -- that's another subject. Hopefully you have some money left over after paying all the regular expenses. That's what you have to play with for entertainment and other non-essentials. Make a schedule for paying your bills. I get paid twice a month, and so I pay most of my bills when I get a paycheck. I have some bills that I allocate to the first check of the month and some to the second, for others, whatever bills came in since my last check, I pay with the current check. I have it arranged so each check is big enough to pay all the bills that come from that check. If you can't do that, if you'll have a surplus from one check and a shortage from the next, then be sure to put money aside from the surplus check to cover the bills you'll pay at the next pay period. Always pay your bills before you spend money on entertainment. Always have a plan to pay your bills. Don't say, \"\"oh, I'll come up with the money somehow\"\". If you have debt -- student loans, car loans, etc -- have a plan to pay it off. One of the most common traps people fall into is saying, \"\"I really need to get out of debt. And I'm going to start paying off my debt. Next month, because this month I really want to buy this way cool toy.\"\" They put off getting out of debt until they have frittered away huge amounts of money on interest. Or worse, they keep accumulating new debt until they can't even pay the interest.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "948a4f5649ea7e6eff5c881e7c1a1db5",
"text": "\"I think the real problem here is dealing with the variable income. The envelope solution suggests the problem is that your brother doesn't have the discipline to avoid spending all his money immediately, but maybe that's not it. Maybe he could regulate his expenses just fine, but with such a variable income, he can't settle into a \"\"normal\"\" spending pattern. Without any savings, any budget would have to be based on the worst possible income for a month. This isn't a great: it means a poor quality of life. And what do you do with the extra money in the better-than-worst months? While it's easy to say \"\"plan for the worst, then when it's better, save that money\"\", that's just not going to happen. No one will want to live at their worst-case standard of living all the time. Someone would have to be a real miser to have the discipline to not use that extra money for something. You can say to save it for emergencies or unexpected events, but there's always a way to rationalize spending it. \"\"I'm a musician, so this new guitar is a necessary business expense!\"\" Or maybe the car is broken. Surely this is a necessary expense! But, do you buy a $1000 car or a $20000 car? There's always a way to rationalize what's necessary, but it doesn't change financial reality. With a highly variable income, he will need some cash saved up to fill in the bad months, which is replenished in the good months. For success, you need a reasonable plan for making that happen: one that includes provisions for spending it other than \"\"please try not to spend it\"\". I would suggest tracking income accurately for several months. Then you will have a real number (not a guess) of what an average month is. Then, you can budget on that. You will also have real numbers that allow you to calculate how long the bad stretches are, and thus determine how much cash reserve is necessary to make the odds of going broke in a bad period unlikely. Having that, you can make a budget based on average income, which should have some allowance for enjoying life. Of course initially the cash reserve doesn't exist, but knowing exactly what will happen when it does provides a good motivation for building the reserve rather than spending it today. Knowing that the budget includes rules for spending the reserves reduces the incentive to cheat. Of course, the eventual budget should also include provisions for long term savings for retirement, medical expenses, car maintenance, etc. You can do the envelope thing if that's helpful. The point here is to solve the problem of the variable income, so you can have an average income that doesn't result in a budget that delivers a soul crushing decrease in quality of living.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c7164c4485092f525788ac2fbd1e1454
|
Why can't a US state default, but a EU state can?
|
[
{
"docid": "61bbfe419b10a8b75e647ebabeaa7088",
"text": "\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? In 1847 four states - Mississippi, Arkansas, Michigan, and Florida - failed to pay all or some of their debts. All of these states had issued debt to invest in banks. From the detailed source listed below: \"\"...it should be remembered that all cases of state debt repudiation, as contrasted with mere default, involved banks.\"\" Jackson had killed the federal central bank 10 years earlier and the states were trying to create their own inflationary central banks. Six other states delayed debt payments from three to six years (source, page 103, this source has more details). This is the only case I know of where US states defaulted. US cities default more frequently. I'm very confused do US single states like IOWA have debt and emits obligations on their own like Italy does in EU? Yes. Individual states can issue their own bonds. Oh, and just another little thing I would like to know, is Dollar a fiat currency too like the Euro? Yes, the US dollar is a fiat currency. I think the better question is: \"\"Is there any currency that is not a fiat currency?\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0d0368bdda605c51b53c580867697f1",
"text": "US or EU states are sovereigns which cannot go bankrupt. US states have defaulted in the 1840's, but in most of those cases creditors were eventually repaid in full. (I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that Indiana was an exception with regard to costs incurred building a canal system) The best modern example of a true near-default was New York City in the late 1970's. Although New York City isn't a state, the size and scope of its finances is greater than many US states. What happened then in a nutshell: Basically, a default of a major state or a city like NYC where creditors took major losses would rock the financial markets and make it difficult for all states to obtain both short and long term financing at reasonable rates. That's why these entities get bailed out -- if Greece or California really collapse, it will likely create a domino effect that will have wide reaching effects.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "85cc61ce4cae47e915371baf9aea5ef4",
"text": "\"But do you know about a US state risking to go default now or in the past? Ultimately, a US state could go into default. However, I doubt that such a scenario would be allowed to transpire. This seems to happen to California with some regularity. That is, risking default. What would happen is not quite well known: \"\"There is no provision for a state to go bankrupt,\"\" Kyser said. \"\"I don't think anyone really knows what will happen or even if the state will go into receivership if it does default. I can tell you this, officials are looking at all the (current) laws.\"\" (source) I believe that the answer to your question is that it could happen, but likely would not be allowed to occur. The nature of the EU and US are quite different. The individual states forming the US are not separate nations. For better or for worse, the US is a stronger federation than the EU. (Something that is lamented at times when the Feds mess with the purview of the locals.)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1e5936595150d32c4c51e53c0bffc161",
"text": "Have seen analysis that at least one state won't be able to repay their obligations using reasonable assumptions, I'm sure it applies to more. A lot of greed went into securitizing those payments the way they did.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0639d406a8990b39b5ae168d9ebf638",
"text": "There no legal framework that allows states like the US or countries in Europe to default on their debt. Should congress pass a law to default the US supreme court is likely to nullify the law.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc4e575ac33da3618e4a5bc3d3820746",
"text": "What? Our currency isn't backed by debt currently. It's a fiat currency. Now, if you're asking whether we could back the value of our currency against some type of debt, sure we could, but it would be an incredibly poor decision. The Constitution doesn't specify the type of currency the U.S. has. It gives Congress that power to either delegate that decision, as in the case of the Federal Reserve or pass their own laws.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dea8171566d9141f05c3d4f716818442",
"text": "Oh, you mean converting your money to that of a country whose public debt is [103% of GDP, instead of the 108% of your own?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt) That seems hardly an advancement, even more so considering that the public debt of the Eurozone as a whole is 82.5% of GDP. Greece is just 2% of the European economy, its default would not mean the collapse of the Euro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b5d19c84907af1282291361ec88cd5c",
"text": "\"Any clearing/ legal experts out there? Is this possible- and if so, is it that big of a deal? Here are my thoughts: 1. The EU is right to request euros to be cleared on \"\"home soil\"\" for sovereignty reasons since 2/3s of euro currency is cleared in London. 2. Moving euro clearing back to the eurozone... would just mirror US regulations. Whats the big deal?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39430e9e2b7e42a65b94a9ad0d7d55bf",
"text": "\"Correct! But this is only true when a central bank is involved. So if there's a single institution that has a territorial monopoly on the production of money (and competing currencies aren't allowed via \"\"legal tender laws\"\"), then the debt-based money system OP describes isn't actually the system being used. That's the problem with his post: he's trying to make it seem like our current system of fiat currencies is somehow natural or emergent. It's not. What we have now is the result of a legal monopoly.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8f6e63d5633a6b93d55ac418d50aa71",
"text": "Typically the debt is held by individuals, corporations and investment funds, not by other countries. In cases where substantial amounts are held by other countries, those countries are typically not in debt themselves (e.g. China has huge holdings of US Treasuries). If the debts were all cancelled, then the holders of the debt (as listed above) would lose out badly and the knock-on effects on the economy would be substantial. Also, governments that default tend to find it harder to borrow money again in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecbce6fb051a2cb6791038ba17979cbf",
"text": "There is no situation one can imagine in which the US defaults (beyond a day or three) on its obligations. The treasury can print money, and while it would be disastrous, 'monetizing' the debt would simply eliminate all outstanding debt at the risk of devaluing the dollar to hyperinflation levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23dcb346982a8bdcf2ec460e8c272c4c",
"text": "There are many different things that can happen, all or some. Taking Russia and Argentina as precedence - you may not be able to withdraw funds from your bank for some period of time. Not because your accounts will be drained, but because the cash supply will be restricted. Similar thing has also happened recently in Cyprus. However, the fact that the governments of Russia and Argentina limited the use of cash for a period of time doesn't mean that the US government will have to do the same, it my choose some other means of restraint. What's for sure is that nothing good will happen. Nothing will probably happen to your balance in the bank (Although Cyprus has shown that that is not a given either). But I'm not so sure about FDIC maintaining it's insurance if the bank fails (meaning if the bank defaults as a result of the chain effect - you may lose your money). If the government is defaulting, it might not have enough cash to take over the bank deposits. After the default the currency value will probably drop sharply (devaluation) which will lead to inflation. Meaning your same balance will be worth much less than it is now. So there's something to worry about for everyone.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53a265388afd1f3bb9d2e8b6440301ff",
"text": "As do other states. The state and national debts are created by big government politicians. Such as bloated civil services, pension funds, more borrowing instead of fiscally responsible. The USA federal gov keeps trillions of shadow debt off its books and downplays the actual unemployment rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5916d0641665dba5b9bd44c1ea6d82c8",
"text": "It's all about risk. In 1990, expressing the idea of the US defaulting on debt payments would result in you being labelled as a crank. Yet in 2011, the President and Speaker of the House played chicken with the credit of the United States, and have a date to do it again in December 2011.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "955eded50460f4e3770185808e6b9088",
"text": "> Europe is a temporary problem. Lol.. The better question for this thread is how is the European economy not utterly doomed? I see no way at all of the Euro surviving. Greece has already technically defaulted by saying it's not going to pay back all of it's debt. They will officially default when Germany stops bailing them out. Spain is in the exact same situation, just about a year behind. They haven't technically defaulted yet, but they will. They're receiving bailout after bailout and the Greece situation only makes their interest rates worse. Italy is just barely behind Spain, the Greek default followed by the Spanish defualt will send Italian interest rates through the roof dooming them to the same fate. This will eventually effect the US, but our borrowing rates are held artificially low due to the Fed just printing up more fake money and letting the US borrow as much as it wants. If you don't see this scheme crumbling and collapsing, I'm just curious what you actually think *will* happen?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "102709659e6804bc3eaebde899eb282a",
"text": "\"Your question is expressed as a run-on sentence, which I'm having trouble parsing. Maybe you could restate. I'm just pointing out the stupidity of the statist canard that [the debt is not a problem because] \"\"we owe it to ourselves\"\". Collectivists like to think we're all in this together, but that's not reality. Some people are taking from others by force of law. The debt is owed to BANKS, and they want to keep this system going. Wouldn't you like to have a legal monopoly on the supply of currency? Institutions which are funded by loose credit (government, academia, military contractors, crony corporations) likewise benefit from this system. Those who invest in US dollars, and those who are farthest from the central planning spigot are the losers in this scheme. But there is more debt than currency, so it can't ever be repaid. So that is a moot point - it can't even hypothetically be considered. There are however a number of other ways that this system could unwind, when it inevitably does. The banks could be left to fail, and their assets would be bid on by others through the bankruptcy process. Or the Fed could keep issuing currency to keep the banks solvent, eventually inflating the whole system into irrelevance.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "da65d37e11ced3265657280ccf9478aa",
"text": "\"For political reasons, almost all governments (including the US) spend more money than they get from taxes etc. There are a number of things a government can do to cover the difference: Most governments opt for selling bonds. The \"\"National Debt\"\" of a country can be thought of as being the sum of all the \"\"Bonds\"\" that are still paying interest, and that the Government hasn't Redeemed. It can all go horribly wrong. If the Government gets into a situation where it cannot pay the interest, or it cannot Redeem the Bonds it has promised to, then it may have to break its promise (\"\"Default\"\" on its payments). This makes the owners of the Bonds unhappy and means potential buyers of future Bond sales are less likely to want to buy the Governments new Bonds - effectively meaning the Government has to promise to pay more interest in the future. Recent examples of this include Argentina; and may include Greece soon. The US is in the fortunate position that not many people believe it will Default. Therefore the new Bonds it sells (which it does on a regular basis) are still in demand, even though its interest payments, and promises to Redeem Bonds are huge.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "856f1f7783b7124bfef17de4e11454f0",
"text": "Don't you need ironclad sovereign debt that will never default type of trust to be a global currency? US is the closest we have at this point? If Europe wasn't on the Euro maybe you can say Germany but who else?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9215c3c8199eb551293160a555f3e27f
|
Digital money pots?
|
[
{
"docid": "977c491090bccd98c5020fd2ef786445",
"text": "If you can live with managing the individual category amounts yourself, this is trivial. Just set up a spreadsheet listing each category (and a column for the total amount of money in the account), adding or subtracting as you deposit or withdraw money to the account. To the bank it will be just one (physical) account, but to you, it can be any number of (accounting asset) accounts. You can choose to keep a history, or not. It's all up to how complex you want to make it. It doesn't even have to be a spreadsheet - you can just as well do this on paper if you prefer that. But the computer makes it easier. I imagine most personal finance software will help you, too; I know GnuCash can be coaxed into doing this with only a bit of creativity, and it almost certainly isn't the only one. I do this myself and it works very well. I don't know but imagine that companies do it all the time: there is no reason why there must be a one-to-one relationship between bank accounts and accounting asset accounts, and in fact, doing so would probably quickly become impractical.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb5469222c16ac4039cbea26d8475e07",
"text": "I guess it depends on your bank. My bank (Rabobank) recently did introduce this feature. You don't get a card per category, though. Instead you set up rules to match each expenditure to one of the existing pots.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "518804c68cb84104740402d5c0394688",
"text": "\"No, but it's serving the same purpose, which is to hide the original origin of a sum of money. Both examples involve moving money from one source to another, when both the source and the sink are in actuality the same entity managed and run by the same people. Both involve doing it in order to hide the money from those who would otherwise have a right to a portion of it. In this case, it is those with a right on the \"\"net\"\". In Starbucks UK, it's the UK government.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a0e4d0c60380c959dadeea5d3d968ccb",
"text": "You will find money in less than an hour! Today is the day to smile or at least experience a bright spot in your day. Take a few minutes from reading, writing, working or whatever it is that drew you into cyberspace today. Lets find some cash, money, dinero, lout, fat wallet, bulging pocketbook! Maybe by the end of the day you will be shopping , driving a new car, calling a friend with some good news, or at best case scenario negotiating the bottom dollar for the mansion of your dreams. http://angelabrummer.hubpages.com/hub/Money-for-FREE-in-minutes",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fcdba0856699d55e25ac1188f0d2b4a",
"text": "Bitcoin could work fairly well. Each site can just give you a wallet to dump money into. Can also do micro-payments where you could pay per-article. With a shared private key on a wallet you keep topped up, they could remove the money as you browse. I can imagine businesses that sell you hard-drive space based on the amount you use rather than a cap, calculate the cost of transmitting each packet of data. You can have one program to manage all the wallets for all your sites. But it would need more penetration before that happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52e161aec330831a69433a984d0b89ae",
"text": "You can try SplashMoney. It works on many platforms, including iPhone, iPod and Mac, but also Palm OS, Android, Blackberry and windows. I've been using it —since more than two years now— with my old Palm OS PDA and it works great. As I work mainly with Linux, I've tested very few times its synchronization with its desktop companion running on windows.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e95f69874e9a0f237cfc6c92eed154e",
"text": "Debit card, no. Prepaid card, probably; some charities do use that approach to make monthly support payments, including to the homeless. You might want to find and talk to one of those groups to find out how they did it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00de82c29af68d86c8cb0534db11653f",
"text": "I can see a long-term existence for it. I doubt it will replace national currencies but I also think there is some value. Gold is purely speculative as well but it's thrived for a very long time. I see this as basically a digital version of gold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7d4ec3f4b46b3085ba58507580e1240",
"text": "If I needed a safe-ish way to bank a lot of cash in vegas I'd exchange for high value chips at the local gambling establishments. I have to imagine that's being done already for other less than legal enterprises.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1455bbcecbe56de5592edbf1106a085e",
"text": "Aha, perhaps...also, perhaps someone like Louis with a product such as this, to the (reasonably) technically literate while pushed through a next-generation service that isn't rapacious when it comes to something as simple as digitally moving money...perhaps it's time. Shake our fists to the heavens, and all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "c13054d90c07f1bf0da2a577f1309eb6",
"text": "\"Cash is a pain to deal with. You have to have change ready for that dick in seat 1A who doesn't have anything smaller than a $20, then by the time you get to seat 39F, you've got hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars. This means that the flight's turnaround time now includes counting, securing, and transporting money, not to mention dealing [with the inevitable problems that an increase in money will bring](http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/image003.jpg). The alternative is having a little handheld machine that, for under $1 per transaction, reduces turnaround workload to \"\"push the 'sync' button.\"\" It makes complete sense in that context, I believe. (Also, if you're flying, I'd say the odds are very good you have some sort of credit-card-like instrument on your person. This might just be my own perspective, though. I've accidentally fucked over taxi drivers by forgetting that mobile credit card terminals are not ubiquitous.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c4a0bcd6ec884cb4e38e9035f7e5ffb",
"text": "I haven't used it in years, but look at GnuCash. From the site, one bullet point under Feature Highlights:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a9ba9d1b4bcc1164a90d43eebcb8187",
"text": "\"I don't know if those machines work this way in the UK too, but here in the US you can often avoid the coin-counting fee if you opt to convert the money into a gift certificate instead of cash. I routinely convert my coins to Amazon gift certificate money with no charge. Individual machines differ in which particular gift cards they use, but at the least, almost all of them offer the option for a no-fee conversion to a voucher/gift certificate to the store where the machine is. So it's likely you'd be able to use the machine to convert the cash to \"\"money\"\" you can use to buy groceries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a75fbc7bcb0805d16c2cea6c1186a8e7",
"text": "You do. They're in your digital wallet which can be on your phone, computer, thumb drive, on cloud storage or wherever you want to keep it. Multiple backups. There are many videos on Youtube that will explain how it all works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8118a2a42ce71b5da832a00656bc4d6",
"text": "The problem is, I don't understand, how such sites work. Is that scam or not? Some of my friends told me that they've actually received the revenue after they deposited a bit of money to similar sites, and I don't have any evidence not to trust them. Yes there are scam. Stay away. Quite likely people got real money back into Bank Account. Or more likely it shows that there is more [notional] money in the sites account. If such sites really 'work', then how and why? These sites work, because there are quite a few people who believe in free / easy money. The site could be classic pyramid / Ponzi scheme. They could also be involved in some kind of Money Laundering. Why would anyone trust them so much to give them money for absolutely no reason? Okay, I'm not so clever, but they can't make profit only because of stupid people, can they? The same way you did, at times just for fun to experiment. At times because they believe there is easy get rich way. There is a reward that works so that if you see 120 you start believing in it. If you try and withdraw, there will be quite a few obstacles; under the pretext of holding period, withdrawal fees etc... but mostly they will encourage you to keep depositing small amounts and see it grow. This of it this way; if one can make 20% day on day ... one does not need someone else's money. The power of compounding would mean very quickly $ 100 would become 88 BILLION in 120 days!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7e75cacb7d4a8796673232198e2982",
"text": "\"I don't think there is a law against it. For example comdirect offers multi banking so you can access your accounts from other banks through the comdirect website. My guess would be: Germans are very conservative when it comes to their money (preferring cash above cards, using \"\"safe\"\" low interest saving accounts instead of stocks) so there just might be no market for such a tool. There are desktop apps with bank syncing that offer different levels of personal finance management. Some I know are MoneyMoney, outbank, numbrs, GNUCash and StarMoney.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b35d6e0db1cd02abdfdda626bf8c9500
|
Previous owner of my home wants to buy it back but the property's value is less than my loan… what to do?
|
[
{
"docid": "88e58fc7aacfc73d67d95be2def2b2c2",
"text": "I would tell the former owner that you will sell him the house for you current loan balance. He wants the home, he may be willing to pay what you owe. You can't really do a short sale unless you are behind on your payments. Banks only agree to a short sale when they think they are going to have to foreclose on the property. Not to mention a short sale is almost as bad as a foreclosure and will wreck your credit. If the former buying is not willing to buy the house for what you owe your only real option is to come up with the difference. If he offers you say $50K less than you owe, you will have to give the mortgage holder the remaining balance $50K in this example for them to release the property. Another problem you will face, if the former owner is willing to pay more than what the house is worth, and he is going to finance it, he will have to have enough cash to put down so that the loan amount is not more than the property is worth. Finally if none of that works you can just hold on to the property until the value comes up or you mortgage is payed down enough to make the balance of the mortgage less than the value of the house. Then offer the property to the former owner again.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ded3d70b3f8d51e04d724454dfef41b7",
"text": "\"I would not trust Zillow for an appraisal. The numbers I see on there vary a lot from real prices. I'm not sure I'd get a full appraisal either, as that means you \"\"know\"\" the value of the house and may be obliged to reveal it. I'd ask for the loan amount and see what the previous owner says.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6eb71e7dc818b887a2328feec54b2ee",
"text": "\"How about doing a Lease Option with a very long term and a very early \"\"option\"\" for the guy buying. Essentially he will be making your mortgage payments for the next couple few years. Much less paperwork for the both of you that way. See a lawyer for the paperwork, from my limited experience with a real estate lawyer is a standard document and shouldn't cost that much.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88c3d6e6f21bc378c76b6887ef0f5222",
"text": "It's a short sale. See these for good overviews: http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg335 http://homebuying.about.com/od/4closureshortsales/a/shortsalebasics.htm You'll want input from your lawyer and accountant (assuming the lender says they would accept such a sale). Best of luck - sounds like this could be a great opportunity for you if it all comes together. DO NOT talk to a realtor.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b07ae75148de472b3158e59fcbfe06d6",
"text": "\"A short-sale seems like an extreme and unethical course to take. You should read your mortgage documents or work with your attorney to read the mortgage and determine whether it is an \"\"assumable\"\" mortgage. If so, you might be able to get the former owner to take over the mortgage.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b9eba242b203aa7e35353ed409783780",
"text": "I'd rent and put the $30K/ yr into savings. When the short sale comes off your credit, you'll have a substantial downpayment. You don't mention the balance, but the current rate you're paying is 3% too high. Even if you get the rate reduced, you have a $100K issue. I recommend reading through Will Short Sale Prevent Me From Getting VA Home Loan Later? A bit different question, but it talks more about the short sale. A comment for that question makes a key point - if you have a short sale, will the bank chase you for the balance? If not, you have a choice to make. Adding note after user11043 commented - First, run the numbers. If you were to pay the $100K off over 7 years, it's $1534/mo extra. Nearly $130K, and even then, you might not be at 80% LTV. I don't know what rents are like in your area, but do the math. First, if the rent is less than the current mortgage+property tax and maintenance, you will immediately have better cash flow each month, and over time, save towards the newer house. If you feel compelled to work this out and stay put, I'd go to the bank and tell them you'd like them to recast the loan to a new rate. They have more to lose than you do, and there's nothing wrong with a bit of a threat. You can walk away, or they can do what's reasonable, to just fix your rate. With a 4% rate, you'd easily attack the principal if you wish. As you commented above, if the bank offers no option, I'd seriously consider the short sale. There's nothing wrong with that option from a moral standpoint, in my opinion. This is not Bedford Falls, and you are not hurting your neighbors. The bank is amoral, if not immoral.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2d5bb94909c30485bc2c50f65b5c5d",
"text": "\"2.5%? Whoa, you are being robbed there. Straight-up, stripped-down, and bent-over-a-table robbed. Never agree to \"\"fees\"\". If they don't want to do the work to give you a loan, there are other lenders who do. Rarely agree to \"\"points\"\". If you know -- and I don't mean \"\"think\"\", I mean \"\"know\"\" -- if you know that you are going to hold that loan much longer than it would take to repay those points, then maybe. For example, if they are charging one point to lower your rate 0.25%, you want to be totally sure you will stay in the house at least four years, and probably more like six or eight years before moving or refinancing. It's more-or-less OK to pay for the appraisal. If something goes wrong with the loan application, the appraisal will be valid for a few more months, you can try again. I once had 14% cash for a down-payment. The loan officer said if I could come up with 15%, the rate would be reduced by 0.25%. To get the money, I took a \"\"reverse point\"\", which paid me 1% but raised my the rate by 0.25%. The loan officer, who wasn't too bright, asked, \"\"Why did you do that? The two things cancel each other out.\"\" \"\"I did it,\"\" I explained, \"\"because you paid me 1% of the value of my house to sign my name twice.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "941f1d51b09cabfb7caf10a37e4ae868",
"text": "\"Go on a website that has real estate listings. Find similar homes in the same neighborhood and list out the prices. Once you have prices, pick out two with different prices and call the realtor of the more expensive listing. Tell that realtor about the other listing and ask why their listing is more expensive. Compare their answer to the home that you are considering buying. For example, they may say that their house has a newly remodeled kitchen. Does the house you are considering have a newly remodeled kitchen? If so, then use the higher priced listing and throw out the cheaper one. If not, use the cheap listing and throw out the expensive one. Or they might say that the expensive house is in a better location than the cheaper house. Further away from traffic. Easier to get to the highway or public transportation. If so, ask how the location compares to the house you are actually considering. The realtor will tell you if the listings are comparable. When I talk about \"\"similar homes,\"\" I mean homes that are similar in square footage, number of bedrooms, and number of bathrooms. Generally real estate sites will allow you to search by all of these as well as location. After all this, the potential seller may still turn you down. If he really wanted to sell, he'd have suggested a price. He may just be seeing if you're willing to overpay. If so, he could turn down an otherwise reasonable offer. How much he is willing to take is up to him. Note that this would all be easier if you just bought a house the normal way. Then the realtors would do the comparables portion of the work. You might be able to find a realtor or appraiser who would do the work for a set fee. Perhaps your bank would help you with that, as they have to appraise the property to offer a mortgage. You asked if you can buy out a mortgaged house with a mortgage. Yes, you can. That's a pretty normal occurrence. Normally the realtors would make all the necessary arrangements. I'm guessing that a title transfer company could handle that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9008113aefe4cd055d3fb9e59ff3ebc7",
"text": "With no agreement in place, the other person can go after half the equity in the house. In my opinion, wanting their down payment back seems reasonable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4002b547b3f537ef33c39b2b45544254",
"text": "\"Often, if your realtor and the selling realtor know each other, your realtor will \"\"discover\"\" what price the seller really wants. (Don't worry about how this is done. There will be no evidence it occurred!) Your realtor will then drop hints that you should aim for that price to ensure the deal goes smoothly. That sounds like what your realtor is doing when he says \"\"If you want to play ball offer them $80k.\"\" He won't stop you from bidding lower, but he knows where you'll end up. Price is just one part of the transaction, however. You can offer $80K, to meet their price, but also request that the seller make recommended repairs or credit you the cost. You can request that the seller cover closing costs or transfer taxes or any other costs. In short, offering the seller X doesn't mean you will pay X. I personally try to avoid credits, because although they make your effective price lower, the actual purchase price still drives things such as your loan, and in many places, your property taxes and other taxes. I would rather reduce the price than get credits. But you do what you have to do if you want the deal. You can also request that certain appliances be included, such as a refrigerator or a washing machine and dryer. You can ask for furniture, or statues in the backyard, or anything else you liked when you saw the house. In short, you offer X for the house, but you also get a bunch of other stuff that you need or want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79ee7e90db2f1e6040e314f243def684",
"text": "Not a good idea, the bank is a lean holder unless you deduct the remainder of the loan from the purchase price you will end up paying much more. Tell the seller to pay off the loan and provide you a clean title. Btw unless you're getting the deal of the century I'd walk away until I saw a clean title",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe42f4891bb8abe1c35dea12d56d0e78",
"text": "Save up a bigger downpayment. The lender's requirement is going to be based on how much you finance, not the price of the house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fad3312aee717d10d69a407a065030d0",
"text": "The terms of most mortgages usually include the requirement for tax escrow. Some banks will let you handle your own taxes once you loan to value drops below 50%. It's annoying that you lose the use of your own funds, I agree. It can't hurt to write a note to the bank and see it they'll waive escrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bee4d2ec69a0fd1cb331ff5ed33ed0ef",
"text": "\"Any sensible lender will require a lean lien against your formerly-free-and-clear property, and will likely require an appraisal of the property. The lender is free to reject the deal if the house is in any way not fitting their underwriting requirements; examples of such situations would be if the house is in a flood/emergency zone, in a declining area, an unusual property (and therefore hard to compare to other properties), not in salable condition (so even if they foreclose on it they'd have a questionable ability to get their money back), and so forth. Some lenders won't accept mobile homes (manufactured housing) as collateral, for instance, and also if the lender agrees they may also require insurance on the property to be maintained so they can ensure that a terrible fate doesn't befall both properties at one time (as happens occasionally). On the downside, in my experience (in the US) lenders will often require a lower loan percentage than a comparable cash down deal. An example I encountered was that the lender would happily provide 90% loan-to-value if a cash down payment was provided, but would not go above 75% LTV if real estate was provided instead. These sort of deals are especially common in cases of new construction, where people often own the land outright and want to use it as collateral for the building of a home on that same land, but it's not uncommon in any case (just less common than cash down deals). Depending on where you live and where you want to buy vs where the property you already own is located, I'd suggest just directly talking to where you want to first consider getting a quote for financing. This is not an especially exotic transaction, so the loan officer should be able to direct you if they accept such deals and what their conditions are for such arrangements. On the upside, many lenders still treat the LTV% to calculate their rate quote the same no matter where the \"\"down payment\"\" is coming from, with the lower the LTV the lower the interest rate they'll be willing to quote. Some lenders might not, and some might require extra closing fees - you may need to shop around. You might also want to get a comparative quote on getting a direct mortgage on the old property and putting the cash as down payment on the new property, thus keeping the two properties legally separate and giving you some \"\"walk away\"\" options that aren't possible otherwise. I'd advise you to talk with your lenders directly and shop around a few places and see how the two alternatives compare. They might be similar, or one might be a hugely better deal! Underwriting requirements can change quickly and can vary even within individual regions, so it's not really possible to say once-and-for-all which is the better way to go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa3d4b96522bea88e0bdae412d40b18e",
"text": "\"There is considerable truth to what your realtor said about the Jersey City NJ housing market these days. It is a \"\"hot\"\" area with lots of expensive condos being bought up by people working on Wall Street in NYC (very easy commute by train, etc) and in many cases, the offers to purchase can exceed the asking price significantly. Be that as is may, the issue with accepting a higher offer but smaller downpayment is that when the buyer's lender appraises the property, the valuation might come in lower and the buyer may have to come up with the difference, or be required to accept a higher interest rate, or be refused the loan altogether if the lender estimates that the buyer is likely to default on the loan because his credit-worthiness is inadequate to support the monthly payments. So, the sale might fall through. Suppose that the property is offered for sale at $500K, and consider two bids, one for $480K with 30% downpayment ($144K) and another for $500K with 20% downpayment ($100K). If the property appraises for $450K, say, and the lender is not willing to lend more than 80% of that ($360K), then Buyer #1 is OK; it is only necessary to borrow $480K - $144K = $336K, while Buyer #2 needs to come up with another $40K of downpayment to be able to get the loan, or might be asked to pay a higher interest rate since the lender will be lending more than 80% of the appraised value, etc. Of course, Buyer #2's lender might be using a different appraiser whose valuation might be higher etc, but appraisals usually are within the same ballpark. Furthermore, good seller's agents can make good estimates of what the appraisal is likely to be, and if the asking price is larger than the agent's estimate of appraised value, then it might be to the advantage of the selling agent to recommend accepting the lower offer with higher downpayment over the higher offer with smaller downpayment. The sale is more likely to go through, and an almost sure 6% of $480K (3% if there is a buyer's agent involved) in hand in 30 days time is worth more than a good chance of nothing at the end of 15 days when the mortgage is declined, during which the house has been off the market on the grounds that the sale is pending. If you really like a house, you need to decide what you are willing to pay for it and tailor your offer accordingly, keeping in mind what your buyer's agent is recommending as the offer amount (the higher the price, the more the agent's commission), how much money you can afford to put down as a downpayment (don't forget closing costs, including points that might be need to be paid), and what your pre-approval letter says about how much mortgage you can afford. If you are Buyer #1, have a pre-approval letter for $360K, and have enough savings for a downpayment of up to $150K, and if you (or your spouse!) really, really, like the place and cannot imagine living in any other place, then you could offer $500K with 30% down (and blow the other offer out of the water). You could even offer more than $500K if you want. But, this is a personal decision. What your realtor said is perfectly true in the sense that for Y > Z, an offer at $X with $Y down is better than an offer at $X with $Z down. It is to a certain extent true that for W > X, a seller would find an offer at $X with $Y down to be more attractive that an offer at $W with $Z$ down, but that depends on what the appraisal is likely to be, and the seller's agent's recommendations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b11a00537c257f650ed6a54ae8d0c128",
"text": "I'm not sure about your first two options. But given your situation, a variant of option three seems possible. That way you don't have to throw away your appraisal, although it's possible that you'll need to get some kind of addendum related to the repairs. You also don't have your liquid money tied up long term. You just need to float it for a month or two while the repairs are being done. The bank should be able to preapprove you for the loan. Note that you might be better off without the loan. You'll have to pay interest on the loan and there's extra red tape. I'd just prefer not to tie up so much money in this property. I don't understand this. With a loan, you are even more tied up. Anything you do, you have to work with the bank. Sure, you have $80k more cash available with the loan, but it doesn't sound like you need it. With the loan, the bank makes the profit. If you buy in cash, you lose your interest from the cash, but you save paying the interest on the loan. In general, the interest rate on the loan will be higher than the return on the cash equivalent. A fourth option would be to pay the $15k up front as earnest money. The seller does the repairs through your chosen contractor. You pay the remaining $12.5k for the downpayment and buy the house with the loan. This is a more complicated purchase contract though, so cash might be a better option. You can easily evaluate the difficulty of the second option. Call a different bank and ask. If you explain the situation, they'll let you know if they can use the existing appraisal or not. Also consider asking the appraiser if there are specific banks that will accept the appraisal. That might be quicker than randomly choosing banks. It may be that your current bank just isn't used to investment properties. Requiring the previous owner to do repairs prior to sale is very common in residential properties. It sounds like the loan officer is trying to use the rules for residential for your investment purchase. A different bank may be more inclined to work with you for your actual purchase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc8770d56350ffc67d89bf2d15efa198",
"text": "You should read the provisions in your offer and any counteroffer that was signed before paying the earnest money, but generally if the appraisal comes in low, the price has to be adjusted. If you can't get a mortgage (because the appraisal is too low) the next guy usually can't either. Unfortunately without more information (the documents that were signed and the locale, to know which laws might be applicable) I can't tell you with certainty that you'll get your earnest money back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f14c3907637f2847cbce41ab113c7f96",
"text": "You'd probably need to prove you can run the business if you want a loan. The best proof you can have is to run the business. Unfortunately that also means that the price of the alley could go up. OP needs to start thinking about a negotiation strategy soon.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9e31264f9315abe930f2a44710544f2",
"text": "\"There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a \"\"hard money\"\" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8cb7522d6ca3e9bda5671deadac30edc",
"text": "I feel your pain. It probably depends on your state, but two things we've tried with some benefit:",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2c55d342c818c23b5b139165bfe38e79
|
Can I deduct child's charitable deduction from my taxes?
|
[
{
"docid": "10b155919975daf0ede1fe6b519d89c4",
"text": "No, you may not deduct the charitable contributions of your children. The Nest covers this in detail: The IRS only allows you to deduct charitable contributions that you personally funded, whether the contribution was made in your name or in someone else's. If your child or dependent makes a donation to a charity, you are not allowed to claim it as a tax deduction. This is true even if your dependent does not claim the contribution on his own tax return because he opts for the standard deduction rather than itemizing or claims exemption. Now, had you constructed the transaction differently, it's possible you could've made the contribution in your child's name and thus claimed the deduction. Allowance is technically a gift, and if she agrees to forgo allowance in exchange for you making a contribution, well, the IRS can't really complain (though they might try if it were a large amount!). Contributions in the name of someone else, but funded by yourself, are deductible: [Y]ou can deduct contributions you make in someone else’s name. So if you donated a certain amount of money to XYZ charity in your child’s name, for example, you would be able to deduct this amount on your taxes, as long as the deduction requirements are met. You will need to keep accurate records of the payment along with the receipt from the organization to prove you financed the donation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "258c76938c7fe7a967057eda50b957c9",
"text": "A rather good IRS paper on the topic states that a donation of a business' in-kind inventory would be Under IRC 170(e)(1), however, the fair market value must be reduced by the amount of gain that would not be long-term capital gain if the property had been sold by the donor at the property's fair market value (determined at the time of the contribution). Under this rule, deductions for donated inventory are limited to the property's basis (generally its cost), where the fair market value exceeds the basis. There are references to IRC regulations in a narrative context you may find helpful: This paper goes on for 16 pages describing detailed exceptions and the political reasons for the exceptions (most of which are concerned with encouraging the donation of prepared food from restaurants/caterers to hunger charities by guaranteeing a value for something that would otherwise be trashed valueless); and a worked out example of fur coats that had a cost of goods of $200 and a market value of $1000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51196b357a69d61315d2cd411b36e763",
"text": "\"When you give a gift to another person or receive a gift from another person there is no impact on your taxes. You do not have to report certain amounts in your income, including the following: ... -most gifts and inheritances; http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/rprtng-ncm/nttxd-eng.html If you give a gift to a charity or similar organization you can reduce your taxes. It is my recollection that when a family member gives a large amount of money to a child, tax on the income that money earns (typically interest) should be paid by the giver, not the child, but I can't find any publications to that effect on the CRA Site. There is a bit of language about \"\"Gifts\"\" from an employer that are really employment income: Gifts and other voluntary payments 1.3 The term gift is not defined in the Act. In common law jurisdictions, the courts have said that a bona fide gift exists when: •There is a voluntary transfer of property, •A donor freely disposes of his or her property to a donee, and •The donee confers no right, privilege, material benefit, or advantage on the donor or on a person designated by the donor. 1.4 Whether a transfer of property has been made voluntarily is a question of fact. In order for a transfer to be considered voluntary, there must be no obligation to make such a transfer. Amounts received as gifts, that is, voluntary transfers without consideration and which cannot be attributed to an income-earning source, are not subject to tax in the hands of the recipient. 1.5 However, sometimes individuals receive a voluntary payment or other valuable transfer or benefit by virtue of an office or employment from an employer, or from some other person. In such cases, the amount of the payment or the value of the transfer or benefit is generally included in employment income pursuant to subsection 5(1) or paragraph 6(1)(a). (See also Guide T4130, Employers’ Guide - Taxable Benefits and Allowances.) Similarly, voluntary payments (or other transfers or benefits) received by virtue of a profession or in the course of carrying on a business are taxable receipts. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/tchncl/ncmtx/fls/s3/f9/s3-f9-c1-eng.html#N10244 If the people in question are adults who are not related to each other and don't have a business or employment relationship, then you should find that regardless of the amount of the gift, neither giver nor recipient will have a tax consequence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c11d1781a910fe53b160db6f0ac43cb5",
"text": "The IRS Guidance pertaining to the subject. In general the best I can say is your business expense may be deductible. But it depends on the circumstances and what it is you want to deduct. Travel Taxpayers who travel away from home on business may deduct related expenses, including the cost of reaching their destination, the cost of lodging and meals and other ordinary and necessary expenses. Taxpayers are considered “traveling away from home” if their duties require them to be away from home substantially longer than an ordinary day’s work and they need to sleep or rest to meet the demands of their work. The actual cost of meals and incidental expenses may be deducted or the taxpayer may use a standard meal allowance and reduced record keeping requirements. Regardless of the method used, meal deductions are generally limited to 50 percent as stated earlier. Only actual costs for lodging may be claimed as an expense and receipts must be kept for documentation. Expenses must be reasonable and appropriate; deductions for extravagant expenses are not allowable. More information is available in Publication 463, Travel, Entertainment, Gift, and Car Expenses. Entertainment Expenses for entertaining clients, customers or employees may be deducted if they are both ordinary and necessary and meet one of the following tests: Directly-related test: The main purpose of the entertainment activity is the conduct of business, business was actually conducted during the activity and the taxpayer had more than a general expectation of getting income or some other specific business benefit at some future time. Associated test: The entertainment was associated with the active conduct of the taxpayer’s trade or business and occurred directly before or after a substantial business discussion. Publication 463 provides more extensive explanation of these tests as well as other limitations and requirements for deducting entertainment expenses. Gifts Taxpayers may deduct some or all of the cost of gifts given in the course of their trade or business. In general, the deduction is limited to $25 for gifts given directly or indirectly to any one person during the tax year. More discussion of the rules and limitations can be found in Publication 463. If your LLC reimburses you for expenses outside of this guidance it should be treated as Income for tax purposes. Edit for Meal Expenses: Amount of standard meal allowance. The standard meal allowance is the federal M&IE rate. For travel in 2010, the rate for most small localities in the United States is $46 a day. Source IRS P463 Alternately you could reimburse at a per diem rate",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d3fe6c49420e3f4d09df38f747e79c2",
"text": "Are you being willfully obtuse? Of course you can do both. However, had you never been taxed you'd have that same money to spend as you see fit, such as giving it to charity. Mind blowing right? Oh so you know how to spend that money better huh? Maybe I say I know how to spend your money better than you. Fuck your charity for down syndrome. People with prostate cancer need it more. Here's your tax bill :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985428520785513a47db82e09ae42b42",
"text": "In addition to changing the beneficiary of the account, you can withdraw excess funds without penalty if the child dies or is disabled, or if the child gets a scholarship. Also remember that the tax and penalty is on earnings, not principal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c9742fdc9f1838021e9391b7022be4c",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7694b18cc0563e2f9cc766ff3d4127be",
"text": "\"A direct gift to a person is never deductible. The kind relative was confusing this with a charitable gift. Which if to a qualified charity can be deducted as part of your itemized deductions. But there, the $14K doesn't enter the equation. But, if your wife is a dog lover, you can donate to the ASPCA, and give her a note saying \"\"in your honor I donated $14K to the ASPCA.\"\" That's a deduction.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe8b5b68a0c31cf7d1413d9103a608d",
"text": "\"The relevant IRS publication is 526, Charitable Contributions. The section titled \"\"Contributions you cannot deduct\"\" begins on page 6; item 4 reads: \"\"The value of your time or services.\"\" I read that to mean that, if the website you built were a product, you could deduct its value. I don't understand the legal distinction between goods and services I originally said that I believe that a website is considered a service. Whether a website is a service or a product appears to be much more controversial that I originally thought. I cannot find a clear answer. I'm told that the IRS has a phone number you can call for rulings on this type of question. I've never had to use it, so I don't know how helpful it is. The best I can come up with is the Instructions for Form 1120s, the table titled \"\"Principal Business Activity Codes,\"\" starting on page 39. That table suggests to me that the IRS defines things based on what type of business you are in. Everything I can find in that table that a website could plausibly fall under has the word \"\"service\"\" in its name. I don't really feel like that's a definitive answer, though. Almost as an afterthought, if you were able to deduct the value of the website, you would have to subtract off whatever the value of the advertisement is. You said that it's not much, but there's probably a simple way of estimating that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc0c40ef937a99bee06ad17089508024",
"text": "\"The 529 plan does outline your scenarios. There are stipulations for providing the funds should the child get the scholarship. If the child decides not to go into further education (vocational and community schools count), the money can be withdrawn with a 10% penalty and taxes paid on interest earnings. Taxes wouldn't have to be paid for contributions as taxes were already paid on that money by the gift giver. The 529 could also be transferred to another child in the family (including grandchildren). Here's an excerpt from www.savingforcollege.com: You'll never lose all of your savings. A 529 plan offers tax-free earnings and tax-free withdrawals as long as the money is used to pay for college. If you end up taking a non-qualified withdrawal, you'll incur income tax as well as a 10% penalty - but only on the earnings portion of the withdrawal. Since your contributions were made with after-tax money, they will never be taxed or penalized. You can avoid the penalty if you get a scholarship. There are a few special exceptions to the 10% penalty rule, including when the beneficiary becomes incapacitated, attends a U.S. Military Academy or gets a scholarship. In the case of a scholarship, non-qualified withdrawals up to the amount of the tax-free scholarship can be taken out penalty-free, but you'll have to pay income tax on the earnings. As Savingforcollege.com founder Joe Hurley likes to say, \"\"the scholarships have turned your tax-free 529 investment into a tax-deferred 529 investment\"\". Note, a 529 is ideal for the sum of money you are looking at. A proper trust, set up by a lawyer, will cost as much as $2000 to set up, and would require an annual tax return, both unnecessary burdens. To make matters worse, the trust counts as the child's asset where financial aid is concerned. The 529 counts, but to a much lesser extent.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4d26b2fb860a8494b39c4bb01b53476",
"text": "No. You should only donate appreciated stock. If you own a stock at a loss, you can only deduct the FMV (fair market value) when you donate. Instead, you should sell it, take the loss on your taxes, and donate the cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e0ba6762afa1117cf022ee0d9323dfe",
"text": "Putting Chris's comment as an answer: It's your income, not your spouse's income. You can give her the money, but you'll still be paying tax on it To elaborate more - the general principle of income taxation is that income is taxed when received, and specific expenditures can be deducted. If you giving the money to your spouse is not one of this specific deductibles - then it is not deductible. Your income, nevertheless, is still taxed to you - as you're the one to receive it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8378244dc29df4226efa9ea00b22aaf4",
"text": "Yes, you do. Unless you actually donate it, the loan will be repaid and as such - is an asset for you. On your taxes you report the interest you got paid for the loan. You can claim the interest as a charitable deduction, if you don't effectively charge any (IRS dictates minimum statutory interests for arm-length loan transactions).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "159ebc98bb6fd24aa4857ed919b18228",
"text": "Do I report it as income? Is it subject to just the same amount of taxes (~30%) as regular income? Are there any restrictions on how it can be used? It is income. You can deduct the costs of maintaining the web page and producing the software from it (have an accountant do that for you, there are strict rules on how to do that, and you can only deduct up to the income if its a hobby and not a for-profit business), but otherwise it's earned income like any other self employment income. It is reported on your schedule C or on line 21 of your 1040 (miscellaneous income), and you're also liable for self-employment taxes on this income. There are no restrictions, it's your money. Technically, who is the donation even being made to? Me, just because I own the webpage? Yes. This is for the United States, but is there any difference if the donations come from overseas? No, unless you paid foreign taxes on the money (in which case you should fill form 1116 and ask for credit). If you create an official 501(c) organization to which the donations are given, instead of you getting it directly, the tax treatment will be different. But of course, you have to have a real charitable organization for that. To avoid confusion - I'm not a licensed tax professional and this is not a tax advice. If in doubt - talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your State.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b239353cfdc455d5b2bc50df36c11c4",
"text": "\"Are you working for a company that offers a Dependent Care Account? You may be able to withhold up to $5000/yr pre tax for care for you child. If you cover more than half her expenses, she is your dependent. You can't \"\"double dip.\"\" If she is your dependent, she cannot be the care provider for purposes of the DCAS, see Pub 503 top of p7 \"\"Payments to Relatives or Dependents.\"\" How do you think a business would change your situation? The DCA is a small tax break, if you have no business now, this break isn't something that should drive this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0697788dca2daa7c13f290a79f500893",
"text": "I would like to bring up some slightly different points than the ones raised in the excellent answers from JoeTaxpayer and littleadv. The estate can be the beneficiary of an IRA -- indeed, as has been pointed out, this is the default beneficiary if the owner does not specify a beneficiary -- but a testamentary trust cannot be the designated beneficiary of an IRA. A testamentary trust that meets the requirements laid out on page 36 of Publication 590 is essentially a pass-through entity that takes distributions from the IRA and passes them on to the beneficiaries. For the case being considered here of minor beneficiaries, the distributions from the IRA that pass through the trust must be sent to the legal guardians (or other custodians) of the minors' UTMA accounts, and said guardians must invest these sums for the benefit of the minors and hand the monies over when the minors reach adulthood. Minors are not responsible for their support, and so these monies cannot be used by the legal guardian for oaying the minors' living expenses except as provided for in the UTMA regulations. When the minors become adults, they get all the accumulated value on their UTMA accounts, and can start taking the RMDs personally after that, and blowing them on motorcycles if they wish. Thus, the advantage of the testamentary trust is essentially that it lets the trustee of the trust to decide how much money (over and above the RMD) gets distributed each year. The minors and soon-to-be young adults cannot take the entire IRA in a lump sum etc but must abide by the testamentary trustee's ideas of whether extra money (over and above the RMD) should be taken out in any given year. How much discretion is allowed to the trustee is also something to be thought through carefully. But at least the RMD must be taken from the IRA and distributed to the minors' UTMA accounts (or to the persons as they reach adulthood) each year. Regardless of whether the Traditional IRA goes to beneficiaries directly or through a testamentary trust, its value (as of the date of death) is still included in the estate, and estate tax might be due. However, beneficiaries can deduct the portion of estate tax paid by the estate from the income tax that they have to pay on the IRA withdrawals. Estate planning is very tricky business, and even lawyers very competent in estate and trust issues fall far short in their understanding of tax law, especially income tax law.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
961c4d7df94a1da689ea114e9e046b43
|
What is the best source of funding to pay off debt?
|
[
{
"docid": "05eafe419e50fbf63ec7bbd92c9472d9",
"text": "\"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcfd8f7a32848022d5089dd35173acee",
"text": "You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f551e53748295c6ad4d75ae14a954b7a",
"text": "First of all a big thumbs up for Ben's answer. A few small things you can do to help you on your way. Hopefully you are not more in debt that 6 months of salary in debt because that is a really tough road. first thing you need to do is get some professional help. The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) offers free or low-cost debt counseling to help you through the process. Visit them at NFCC.org or call 1-800-388-2227 to find a local affiliate office near you. You might want to only use cash for a while. If not and you have a credit card with no balance always use that card because it will be interest free. Remember if you use credit cards as a payment system and not credit, you actually get free interest. If you roll even a penny over into the next statement you are paying interest day one of each purchase. Pay credit cards with highest interest rate first an pay minimums to others This one I like the best. As you get money pay your credit card. You interest is being compounded daily. Pay your cards when you have money, not when they are due. Have a mindset that reminds how much something is really going to cost you If you plan on taking 3 years to get out of debt and you buy something for $100 that is really costs you $156.08 Three years of compound 16% interest. 5b. Conversely if you sell something for $100 on eBay that is like selling something for $156.08.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47159602579961792fc1d47d4eaa0d10",
"text": "Please take a look a Dave Ramsey's Baby Step plan. It has all the details that you need to clean up your personal finance situation. None of your options are good. As some of the other answers mentioned, behavior modification is the key. Any idea will be worthless if you just wind up in debt again. Many, many people, including me, have made the change using Dave's plan. You can too. With regard to helping your son with tuition, are there better or cheaper options? It does not make sense to put yourself in financial peril in order to cover college expenses. I understand that is a tough decision but he is a man now and needs to be part of the real world solution. Following the Baby Steps: The biggest factor is a belief that you can fix the mess. 30k is not really that much, with a good plan and focus, you can clean it up. Good luck.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "50bd800bc724032df643034909cc34a6",
"text": "\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eef4b7f2d2e5b7f1b43e72f45e7f1298",
"text": "\"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9772ce3b39dea82f5f7821f4cbe8efd",
"text": "This is a case where human nature and arithmetic lead to different results. Depending on the your income, the effective interest rate on the mortgage is probably right around 2.5%. So purely by arithmetic, the absolute cheapest way to go is to put the $11k to the bigger car loan, then pay off the mortgage, then the smaller car loan. The Debt Snowball is more effective however, because it works better for people. Progress is demonstrated quickly, which maintains (and often enhances) motivation to continue. I can say as a case in point, having tried both methods, that if does indeed work. So, I am with you ... pay off the car loan first, and roll that payment into the bigger car loan. If you add no extra dollars, you should get the small loan paid off in 6 to 8 months and the bigger car loan in another 16 to 18 months. It sounds like from your message that you have another $1500 or so a month. If that is the case ... small loan paid off in two months, bigger loan paid off in another year. If you stick with the Ramsay program, you then build an emergency fund and start investing. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0b4d0abf230c210ffabb1e20426bf84",
"text": "Two different questions: Is it better to be in debt or to pay off the debt? And: Is it better to have student debt than other debt? Any debt needs to be paid off eventually, and any debt makes you less flexible. So if you have the choice between spending/wasting your money and paying off debt, I would recommend paying off the debt. The other question is whether having student debt is better than having other debt. You need to look at the terms of your student debt. Pay off the debt with the worst conditions first. Loan sharks (in Britain: pay-day loans) must be paid first. Credit cards debt must go next. Then general loans. Depending on your situation, you may want some savings as well. In case you lose your job, for example. So if you have $8,000 saved and an $8,000 student loan, you might consider waiting a bit before you pay back the loan. No job + $8,000 student loan + $8,000 in the bank is better than no job + no debt + no money in the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40e63eabd78c2e65995082762ec7900d",
"text": "\"There are a great number of financial obligations that should be considered more urgent than student loan debt. I'll go ahead and assume that the ones that can land people in jail aren't an issue (unpaid fines, back taxes, etc.). I cannot stress this enough, so I'll say it again: setting money aside for emergencies is so much more important than paying off student loans. I've seen people refer to saving as \"\"paying yourself\"\" if that helps justify it in your mind. My wife and I chose to aggressively pay down debt we had stupidly accrued during college, and I got completely blindsided by a layoff during the downturn. Guess what happened to all those credit cards we'd paid off and almost paid off? Guess what happened to my 401k? If all we had left were student loans, then I still wouldn't prioritize paying those off. There are income limits to Roth IRAs, so if you're in a field where you'll eventually make too much to contribute, then you'll lose that opportunity forever. If you're young and you don't feel like learning too much about investing, plop 100% of your contributions into the low-fee S&P 500 index fund and forget it until you get closer to retirement. Don't get suckered into their high-fee \"\"Retirement 20XX\"\" managed funds. Anyway, sure, if you have at least three months of income replacement in savings, have maximized your employer 401k match, have maximized your Roth IRA contributions for the year, and have no other higher interest debt, then go ahead and knock out those student loans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63792b296af0765c2debb64c8e9bc54d",
"text": "A traditional bank is not likely to give you a loan if you have no source of income. Credit card application forms also ask for your current income level and may reject you based on not having a job. You might want to make a list of income and expenses and look closely at which expenses can be reduced or eliminated. Use 6 months of your actual bills to calculate this list. Also make a list of your assets and liabilities. A sheet that lists income/expenses and assets/liabilities is called a Financial Statement. This is the most basic tool you'll need to get your expenses under control. There are many other options for raising capital to pay for your monthly expenses: Sell off your possessions that you no longer need or can't afford Ask for short term loan help from family and friends Advertise for short term loan help on websites such as Kijiji Start a part-time business doing something that you like and people need. Tutoring, dog-walking, photography, you make the list and pick from it. Look into unemployment insurance. Apply as soon as you are out of work. The folks at the unemployment office are willing to answer all your questions and help you get what you need. Dip into your retirement fund. To reduce your expenses, here are a few things you may not have considered: If you own your home, make an appointment with your bank to discuss renegotiation of your mortgage payments. The bank will be more interested in helping you before you start missing payments than after. Depending on how much equity you have in your home, you may be able to significantly reduce payments by extending the life of the mortgage. Your banker will be impressed if you can bring them a balance sheet that shows your assets, liabilities, income and expenses. As above, for car payments as well. Call your phone, cable, credit card, and internet service providers and tell them you want to cancel your service. This will immediately connect you to Customer Retention. Let them know that you are having a hard time paying your bill and will either have to negotiate a lower payment or cancel the service. This tactic can significantly reduce your payments. When you have your new job, there are some things you can do to make sure this doesn't happen again: Set aside 10% of your income in a savings account. Have it automatically deducted from your income at source if you can. 75% of Americans are 4 weeks away from bankruptcy. You can avoid this by forcing yourself to save enough to manage your household finances for 3 - 6 months, a year is better. If you own your own home, take out a line of credit against it based on the available equity. Your bank can help you with that. It won't cost you anything as long as you don't use it. This is emergency money; do not use it for vacations or car repairs. There will always be little emergencies in life, this line of credit is not for that. Pay off your credit cards and loans, most expensive rate first. Use 10% of your income to do this. When the first one is paid off, use the 10% plus the interest you are now saving to pay off the next most expensive card/loan. Create a budget you can stick to. You can find a great budget calculator here: http://www.gailvazoxlade.com/resources/interactive_budget_worksheet.html Note I have no affiliation with the above-mentioned site, and have a great respect for this woman's ability to teach people about how to handle money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2846df3bdea0ffd348b6b139b908bfe",
"text": "True, not everyone becomes a debt-slave, especially if you choose your major wisely. I like it when people like you tell those debt-slave holders to put it in their pipe and smoke it! Actually, they probably would, with a brandy.",
"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": "d090dd085d2a07d824cdcc6e0db439e3",
"text": "No. Unless you are ten Bill Gates rolled into one man, you can not possibly hope to make a dent in the 14 trillion debt. Even if you were and paid off whole debt in one payment, budget deficits would restore it to old glory in a short time. If you have some extra money, I'd advise to either choose a charity and donate to somebody who needs your help directly or if you are so inclined, support a campaign of a financially conservative politician (only if you are sure he is a financial conservative and doesn't just tell this to get elected - I have no idea how you could do it :).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0094fbb946b03bcaaa95bac03b2c69af",
"text": "\"Pay off the highest rate debt. Interest on both are charged on the balance owed, nothing more complicated than that. There are those who would call a mortgage \"\"front loaded\"\" but that's nonsense. Of course most of the payment is interest at the beginning because the debt is higher and you start with a 30 year term. The fastest way to pay off multiple debts is always from highest rate first and then the next and so on.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca285c080f0cfbf760d644dbff0775e2",
"text": "What is best for everyone is maximizing the effectiveness of the resources at hand. We are most certainly not doing that, as there is just so much capacity sitting idle right now. Demand is what we are lacking. Stimulus creates demand. Demand puts people to work, it builds companies, it brings ideas to fruition. Effective limiters can be used to avoid consequences of an overheating economy when that time comes, but we are far away from that point. Imposing these silly superstitions that somehow someday the U.S. is going to get to a point where we can't pay back our debt is making us lose focus on the fact that real people are suffering today, and that we can do something about it. Without artificial constraints like congress putting a limit on the debt, **it is impossible for the U.S. government to default.**",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d39986d50b0e63031806e14e0e0c04a4",
"text": "\"Wow, you guys get really cheap finance. here a mortage is 5.5 - 9% and car loans about 15 - 20%. Anyway back to the question. The rule is reduce the largest interest rate first (\"\"the most expensive money\"\"). For 0% loans, you should try to never pay it off, it's literally \"\"free money\"\" so just pay only the absolute minimum on 0% loans. Pass it to your estate, and try to get your kids to do the same. In fact if you have 11,000 and a $20,000 @ 0% loan and you have the option, you're better to put the 11,000 into a safe investment system that returns > 0% and just use the interest to pay off the $20k. The method of paying off the numerically smallest debt first, called \"\"snowballing\"\", is generally aimed at the general public, and for when you can't make much progress wekk to week. Thus it is best to get the lowest hanging fruit that shows progress, than to try and have years worth of hard discipline just to make a tiny progress. It's called snowballing, because after paying off that first debt, you keep your lifestyle the same and put the freed up money on as extra payments to the next target. Generally this is only worth while if (1) you have poor discipline, (2) the interest gap isn't too disparate (eg 5% and 25%, it is far better to pay off the 25%, (3) you don't go out and immediately renew the lower debt. Also as mentioned, snowballing is aimed at small regular payments. You can do it with a lump sum, but honestly for a lump sum you can get better return taking it off the most expensive interest rate first (as the discipline issue doesn't apply). Another consideration is put it off the most renewable finance. Paying off your car... so your car's paid off. If you have an emergency, redrawing on that asset means a new loan. But if you put it off the house (conditional on interest rates not being to dissimilar) it means you can often redraw some or all of the money if you have an emergency. This can often be better than paying down the car, and then having to pay application fees to get a new unsecured loan. Many modern banks actually use \"\"mortgage offsetting\"\" which allows them to do this - you can keep your lump sum in a standard (or even fixed term) and the value of it is deducted \"\"as if\"\" you'd paid it off your mortgage. So you get the benefit without the commitment. The bank is contracted for the length of the mortgage to a third party financier, so they really don't want you to change your end of the arrangement. And there is the hope you might spend it to ;) giving them a few more dollars. But this can be very helpful arragement, especially if you're financing stuff, because it keeps the mortgage costs down, but makes you look liquid for your investment borrowing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55dc1bbd3528ca485ea549a23d352fa9",
"text": "In the United Kingdom, there is a leading company that has been offering Progressive business funding solutions to the businesses for the last 120 years. Their service areas are South Africa, New Zealand, Ireland, Canada, Australia, USA, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6236c533a709b202a826720071e1f5a7",
"text": "\"Although there is no single best answer to your situation, several other people have already suggest it in some form: always pay off your highest after-tax (!) interest loan first! That being said, you probably also have heard about the differentiation for good debt vs. bad debt. Good debt is considered a mortgage for buying your primary home or, as is the case here, debt for education. As far as I am concerned, those are pretty much the only two types of debt I'd ever tolerate. (There may be exceptions for health/medical reasons.) Everything else is consumer debt and my personal rule is, don't buy it if you don't have the money for it! Meaning, don't take on consumer debt. One other thing you may consider before accelerating paying off your student debt, the interest paid on it may be tax deductible. So you should look at what the true interest is on your student loan after taxes. If it is in the (very) low single digits, meaning between 1-3%, you may consider using the extra money towards an automatic investment plan into an ETF index fund. But that would be a question you should discuss with your tax accountant or financial adviser. It is also critical in that case that you don't view the money invested as \"\"found\"\" money later on, unless you have paid off all your debt. (This part is the most difficult for most people so be very cautious and conscious if you decide to go this route!) At any rate, congratulations on making so much progress paying off your debt! Keep it going.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b55b16808a311dbb4b161a3edf5e098b",
"text": "\"The answer is stimulus, but more specifically direct spending. The kind of \"\"stimulus\"\" where we simply fill in giant gaping holes of bank balance sheets is not \"\"stimulus\"\" at all, and those who criticize \"\"keynesian economics\"\" because the bailouts \"\"failed\"\" don't understand what they are saying. Bailouts are not stimulus. Creating middle class jobs, that is stimulus. I will put it to you this way. Almost every single company in existence uses some kind of debt to leverage its operations. Almost every company that is listed on the stock exchange either sells bonds or issues commercial paper or both. This can also be a useful position for the government, especially since their cost of borrowing is lower than that of any company. Essentially, the government can borrow at 1%, put people to work, and collect 25% in taxes. Its cash flow positive in the short term, and in the long term as well, as long as it is effective and the economy gets better. A growing economy will bring in more than enough tax revenue to offset any costs of jump starting the economy. If instead you wanted austerity, you would be calling for austerity on the largest economy in the world, who's bonds are still rated AAA, and who's borrowing costs are 1%. If you are calling for austerity on that, then nobody on earth is credit worthy. It is a non-sensical position.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
034367769c77d7fc7bf290fb21407c5e
|
In which situations is it better to consider a loan instead of paying cash?
|
[
{
"docid": "a31c57db14f6ad422dce707e8eeb3d93",
"text": "Your practice of waiting until you can pay cash is a good one. It will certainly prevent you from getting into debt! Now, to be clear, your question puts a credit card in the same category as a loan, but it doesn't have to be. You could use a credit card almost like cash, if you are careful. I'm not familiar with the system in France, but in the US, even if you are paying cash all the time, there are some benefits to getting a credit card and paying it off in full every month, instead of simply paying with cash. Some of those benefits are: One pretty big downside of having a credit card depends on your personality. Some people, once they have credit, end up spending beyond their means, and end up getting into debt. Please look into whether credit cards work the same way in France before considering the above advice. As for your question regarding getting a loan vs paying cash, that will usually be personal preference, since with a loan you can buy expensive items (such as a house or car) much sooner than you otherwise could if you waited until you saved the money. For example, it might take 10 years or more to build up enough money to purchase a house with cash, so if you don't want to wait that long, you'll need to finance it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b7a6bdc360c99bedfb60ace81842d06",
"text": "A loan with modest interest is better than paying by cash if there are better alternatives for investment. For example, suppose you are buying a house. Consider two extremes: a) you pay the house entirely by cash, b) the entire buy is financed by the bank. Historically, real (subtracting inflation) house prices (at least in the U.S.) have not risen at all in the long run, and investing all of your own capital in this way may not be optimal. Notice that we are looking at a situation where one is buying a house and living in it in any case. Rent savings are equal in cases a) and b). If instead you were buying a house not for yourself, but as a separate investment for renting out, then you would receive rent. In the case a), the real return on your capital will be zero, whereas in case b), you can invest the cash in e.g. the stock market and get, on average, 7% (the stock market has yielded a 7% real return annually including dividends) annually minus the bank's interest rate. If the interest is lower than 7%, it may be profitable to take the loan. Of course, the final decision depends on your risk preferences.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "423a0170b48b47cec078f3cb5e5bc811",
"text": "In general I'd say, yeah, if you can pay cash, pay cash. If you pay cash, then by definition you pay zero interest. If you get a loan, you'll pay interest. Most people get a loan to buy a car because they don't have the cash. Possible reasons not to pay cash when you could: One: Technically you can pay cash, but if you did, you would have little or no reserve for emergencies. Like if the car costs, say, $20,000.00, and you have $20,010.00 in your bank account, then technically you could afford to pay cash, but you probably shouldn't, because you don't want to have just $10 left. What if tomorrow something comes up? Two: Arguably, you have a place to invest money that pays more than the interest on the loan. Like say you can get a car loan for, whatever the going rate is today, say 6%. And you know a place to invest your money that is very safe and almost guaranteed to pay 10%. It would make sense to borrow to buy the car, invest the cash, and then withdraw money from the investment to make the payments on the car. You'd end up 4% ahead. There are a lot of catches to that strategy, though. The biggest is that the more the investment pays, the more likely that it is risky. If you thought the investment would pay 10% but it ends up paying only 4%, then you will lose money by this strategy. Also, there's the psychological element: Many people SAY and fully INTEND to invest their money, but then find other things they want to buy and so spend it instead. If you pay cash, you're committed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8be4b8c3196627390ff6bf2365f30916",
"text": "\"My thoughts on loaning money to friends or family are outlined pretty extensively here, but cosigning on a loan is a different matter. It is almost never a good idea to do this (I say \"\"almost\"\" only because I dislike absolutes). Here are the reasons why: Now, all that said, if my sister or parents were dying of cancer and cosigning a loan was the only way to cure them, I might consider cosigning on a loan with them, if that was the only option. But, I would bet that 99.9% of such cases are not so dire, and your would-be co-borrower will survive with out the co-signing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b3f82490545738a70a5650e386482f7",
"text": "The latter. Simply because having some savings is always better than having no savings. Using a credit card in an emergency will always be an option (as long as you are paying off debt) but using savings earmarked for emergencies is better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d9398427d81cedd786daf86c52a4d027",
"text": "The only time borrowing instead of paying from cash would make sense is if you have (or think you might run into) opportunities to put that cash to work for you earning more than the interest you're paying. For instance, you might run into investment opportunities where having the cash to jump in would let you get into them. Beyond something like this, it'd be foolish to pay interest just so you can have a bigger bank balance and feel like you're somehow better off! I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e60d0a15a835c2018ef1b5193889378",
"text": "First, as others have commented, the idea that getting a mortgage to buy a house is always a good idea is false. It depends on a number of factors including the current interest rate, what you think the future interest rate will do over the life of your mortgage, the relative cost of renting vs. buying, and how long you would stay in the house that you bought. To the extent that a mortgage for a house is more often recommended than buying other goods on credit, it is for these reasons: Except for #1 above, you could and can find other situations where taking a loan makes more sense than buying in cash. This more true if you have the resources and the skill to invest money at a rate that beats the interest rate you pay to the creditor. The general advice not to try this rests in the fact that most people don't have the resources or the skill to actually make this pay off, especially on high-interest rate loans or over short time periods.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec55ffc0afb013f63119e61c57879329",
"text": "\"Personally, I avoid making business deals with friends and relatives. There's just too much of a possibility that things can go wrong. Let's assume that you're honest people and you have no intention of cheating your mother-in-law. Still, all sorts of things could happen that could make it difficult for you to repay the loan. You could lose your job. You could get some big medical expense. Etc. Then what happens? Then your financial problems become family problems. There's a strong temptation when people borrow from relatives to make paying the loan the lowest priority in their budget. \"\"I know I promised to pay \\$X per month, but things are really tight right now and Mom should understand.\"\" Maybe she does understand and can manage without it. But maybe not. And then it becomes a family fight. \"\"You promised you'd pay it back.\"\" \"\"And we will, we're having a hard time right now. Can't you just give us a break?\"\" Etc. Or she might have some extra expense, and say, \"\"Hey, can't you pay a little more this month? I really need some extra cash.\"\" \"\"I'm sorry, we're struggling just to make the regular payments, we can't.\"\" \"\"Well I was willing to loan you all this money. The least you could do is pay me back when I need it.\"\" Etc. You can end up ruining family relationships over money. Your wife can find herself in the position of having to choose whether to side with her mother or her husband. Etc. I'm sure plenty of people do things like this and it works out just great. But there are big risks. And by the way, apparently this was your idea, not your mother-in-laws. I wonder what her reaction is. Is she eager to help out her daughter and son-in-law and had nothing in particular to do with the money anyway? Or is she feeling very imposed on? It's one thing to ask relatives to let you borrow their car for the weekend. Asking someone to loan you $50,000 is a very big request. If one of my kids asked me to loan them $50,000 from my retirement fund, I'd consider that a very presumptuous request. (Unless they needed the money for life-saving surgery for my grandchild or some such.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57f49375edc6630c93e584cdd1b96b07",
"text": "As mentioned in the comments, there are costs associated with owning & living in an apartment. First you have to pay maintenance charges on a monthly basis and perhaps also property tax. Find out the overall outgoings when you live in that apartment & add the EMI payments to the bank, it should not be way higher than your current rent. As an advantage you are getting an asset when you buy an apartment & rent is a complete loss, ast least financial terms. So, real estate is in general a good idea over paying rent. As for the loan part, personal loans are by far the most expensive of loans as they are in general unsecured loans (but do check with your bank). One way is to try and get a student loan, which should be cheaper. If you can borrow from family that is the best option, you could return the money with perhaps bank fixed deposit rates, it is better to pay family interest than bank. If none of the options are workable, then personal loan is something you need to look at with a clear goal to pay it off as soon as possible and try to take it in stages, as an when you require it and if possible avoid taking all the 15,000/- at once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "908bb1c1bfc0b6588872a25b38b982be",
"text": "I think you are a little confused. If you have 10.000€ in cash for a car, but you decide instead to invest that money and take out a loan for the car at 2,75% interest, you would have to withdraw/sell 178€ each month from your investment to make your loan payment. If you made exactly 2,75% on your investment, you would be left with 0€ in your investment when the loan was paid off. If your investment did better than 2,75%, you would come out ahead, and if your investment did worse than 2,75%, you would have lost money on your decision. Having said all that, I don't recommend borrowing money to buy a car, especially if you have that amount of cash set aside for the car. Here are some of the reasons: Sometimes people feel better about spending large amounts of money if they can pay it off over time, rather than spending it all at once. They tell themselves that they will come out ahead with their investments, or they will be earning more later, or some other story to make themselves feel better about overspending. If getting the loan is allowing you to spend more money on a car than you would spend if you were paying cash, then you will not come out ahead by investing; you would be better off to spend a smaller amount of money now. I don't know where you are in the world, but where I come from, you cannot get a guaranteed investment that pays 2,75%. So there will be risk involved; if the next year is a bad one for your investment, then your investment losses combined with your withdrawals for your car payments could empty your investment before the car is paid off. Conversely, by skipping the 2,75% loan and paying cash for your car, you have essentially made a guaranteed 2,75% on this money, comparatively speaking. I don't know what the going rate is for car loans where you are, but often car dealers will give you a low loan rate in exchange for a higher sales price. As a result, you might think that you can easily invest and beat the loan rate, but it is a false comparison because you overpaid for the car.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "baf9d55a3c1cb700d5e66ed474161839",
"text": "\"Stripping away the minutia, your question boils down to this: Should I take a loan for something that I may not be able to repay? The correct answer, is \"\"No\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46e0fd4a0513b1e04e20f5ec1819ed82",
"text": "Sometimes I think it helps to think of the scenario in reverse. If you had a completely paid off car, would you take out a title loan (even at 0%) for a few months to put the cash in a low-interest savings account? For me, I think the risk of losing the car due to non-payment outweighs the tens of dollars I might earn.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d12272c61a7a535aa124ab8936cba9f1",
"text": "\"The purpose of taking a \"\"secured loan\"\" is to build credit. This might be done by someone who had a bad stain on their credit history such as a bankruptcy or foreclosure, or possibly by someone just out of school (presumably with few or no student loans),and no credit history. Not everyone needs to, or should do this, however. The advantage for a borrower is that s/he gets to create a record of repaying a loan that will partly mitigate the bad credit history. The advantage for the bank is that it is \"\"no risk,\"\" because the savings account is the security for the loan. That would make it willing to \"\"lend\"\" to a bad credit risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a09e9dd844941d4352bf9c67c6f78d0",
"text": "\"The number one reason to borrow is quite simple; when you have no other choice. The primary reason to do this is when renovations or additions must be made in a timeframe that precludes you being able to save enough money to pay cash. Harmanjd's example of a kid on the way with no space to put him is a very good hypothetical. Disaster recovery is another; insurance doesn't cover everything and can sometimes be slow to pay out, and even if the payoff will rebuild the house exactly the way it was, these situations are deceptively good opportunities to improve on what you had. Since you already have to call in the contractors to demo and rebuild, the cost to do that is sunk, and the incremental cost of improvements or even additional square footage is relatively minor. Other acceptable reasons to borrow are: When cost of capital is very cheap. A typical amortized HELOC is pretty expensive when paid on-schedule, but if you can pay it off very early (i.e. when you sell the home next month) or you get a good deal on the interest rate (a subsidized disaster recovery loan, perhaps; you have to be careful with these as they're not intended to turn a burnt-down hovel into a McMansion) the cost of borrowing can be acceptable even if you had cash savings for the project. You have other uses for the cash that can offset cost of borrowing. This generally requires the first point to be true as well, as it's a general rule that borrowing $10,000 costs you more than you would gain by investing $10,000, but there are situations in which the reverse can be true (if you have $10k in oil or major tech stocks right now, it would probably be a bad move to liquidate them for home improvements if you can get a HELOC at less than 6%). You can realize a net gain in home value from the reno. These situations are rare in cases of an already livable home; \"\"flippers\"\", which make their living on renovating homes for a profit, generally choose homes with obvious but easy-to-fix problems that depress home value because they look worse than they are. If you bought your home without any such problems, you probably paid something close to market value at the time, and so you're probably behind the curve. However, if you (or your family in the case of an estate transfer) have owned the home for a long time, long enough for things to fall WAY out of date, then you can catch up a lot of market value with one renovation, where if the home had had two or three renovations along the way a reno now wouldn't gain you as much value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ce6e234bcd2d422faa5923cfb84c98f",
"text": "use all cash I have This is a horrible idea. Any problem requiring money will turn into a really big problem. For example any bigger problem with newly bought 2 room flat (emergency repair, damage by renter) will both reduce income and be impossible to fix until some money is secured. Whatever contribution higher than minimal depends on many factors (risks, alternative sources of money, loan conditions etc). But spending all cash and living paycheck to paycheck is unlikely to be worth it. it can be assumed, that I will always be able to find someone to rent my flats This is a very optimistic assumption.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4fbdc6fb725647d5a2aa9ab359f388c",
"text": "Also keep in mind that with an all-cash offer, they get their money now and not spread over X-many years, which means they can reinvest it now rather than piece meal across the term of whatever the loan would be. (Presuming the bank would be financing the house themselves.) Additionally, with an all-cash offer, there end to be fewer lawyers at the table, fewer parties total, so the process can generally proceed faster.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01bc163dafeb74461141b9a95710d206",
"text": "\"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ced2c75e7bbe83d40a7c03d45209608e
|
Credit Card Purchase - 'it is the bank's money no[t] yours' ?
|
[
{
"docid": "ed92a26567b09642092447d525ece178",
"text": "Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "229dcdc4c02910101ea85c81c214c263",
"text": "\"The statement is (in laymans terms - if not in real terms) correct. Most credit cards (I know this to be true for VISA and Mastercard) have dispute processes and will do a chargeback on the merchant - ie take the money back from the supplier in cases where you don't receive the goods or other fraud - Particularly if they can't produce a signature and (for transactions which are not face-to-face) a tracking number. Your exact rights will vary by bank, but mostly they need to follow the guidelines set by the Credit Card company - and you do need to be a bit careful - if you received goods which were fake or a dispute arises you may be up for shipping the goods back to the merchant - and you have a limited - but reasonable time - in which to make the dispute. (The statement \"\"the money is the banks\"\" is not technically true, there is no money involved until you pay it, only credit [ they are very different, but almost no-one knows that, I communicated with a Minister of Finance on the topic], but this is quite technical and as a layman not something you need to worry about here)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d14c40b363e424d58fc717cbba618d85",
"text": "\"Great, I wonder how I the customer will be paying for this. I don't know exactly when it happened or the specifics but BOA lost 500 million in some bad loan or something a while back and a month later started taking on fees to what used to be free services. They started charging 5 dollars for a replacement debit card and other stuff like that. Their explantation for it was \"\"we have the right to make a profit\"\" when really it just seems they were covering their asses. Instead of cutting costs internally like an ethical/responsible company would, they make their customers pay for it. As soon as my credit card account goes up for renewal I am done with that bank.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f04c572febf901d91fa7fbf164c5f1f",
"text": "Your chief problem seems to be that you're mixing Visa (credit cards) and Step2 (a European Automated Clearing House). Credit cards are primarily an American concept, but do work worldwide especially in travel&tourism industry. The Credit Card companies are financial institutions themselves and operate similar to international banks They're typically acting as intermediaries between the customer's bank and the retailer's bank, so this works even if those two banks have no existing agreements. This is expensive, though. Step2 is a cheaper European system which eliminates the middle man. It allows the consumer's bank to directly pay the retailer's bank. VISA is not a member of Step2.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7a54ca9b45f248ad3c03b5eb173e2a2",
"text": "There are three parties involved here: there's the store that issued you the card, then they have some bank that's actually handling the account, and there is some network (VISA, MasterCard, etc.) that the transactions go through. So one avenue to consider is seeing whether all three are aware of you canceling the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a682f2cbbdf005cda229bd17b4176713",
"text": "Etiquette doesn't really come into the picture here. The business offers a service and I choose to accept it. Personally, I use my debit card as much as possible. For every transaction, I record it in my checkbook. Then, when I do reconciling, I know exactly how much I paid for various categories of stuff. Good for budgeting. Most often my purchases are over $10 but when they aren't, I have no qualms about using the card.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93a0c77bd96dcc00649728b679847af7",
"text": "Credit cards are often more fool proof, against over-drawing. Consider Bill has solid cash flow, but most of their money is in his high interest savings account (earning interest) -- an account that doesn't have a card, but is accessible via online banking. Bill keeps enough in the debit (transactions) account for regular spending, much of which comes out automatically (E.g. rent, utilities), some of which he spends as needed eg shopping, lunch. On top of the day to day money Bill keeps an overhead amount, so if something happens he doesn't overdraw the account -- which would incur significant fees. Now oneday Bill sees that the giant flatscreen TV he has been saving for is on clearence sale -- half price!, and there is just one left. It costs more than he would normally spend in a week -- much more. But Bill knows that his pay should have just gone in, and his rent not yet come out. Plus the overhead he keep in the account . So there is money in his debit account. When he gets home he can open up online banking and transfer from his savings (After all the TV is what he was saving for) What Bill forgets is that there was a public holiday last week in the state where payroll is operated, and that his pay is going to go in a day late. So now he might have over drawn the account buying the TV, or maybe that was fine, but paying the rent over draws the account. Now he has a overdraft fee, probably on the order of $50. Most banks (at least where I am), will happily allow you to overdraw you account. Giving you a loan, at high interest and with an immediate overdraft fee. (They do this cos the fee is so high that they can tolerate the risk of the non-assessed loan.) Sometimes (if you ask) they don't let you do it with your own transcations (eg buying the TV), but they do let you do it on automated payements (eg the Rent). On the other hand banks will not let you over draw a credit card. They know exactly how much loan and risk they were going to take. If Bill had most of his transactions going on his credit card, then it would have just bounced at the cash register, and Bill would have remembered what was going on and then transferred the money. There are many ways you can accidentally overdraw your account. Particularly if it is a shared account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffd1a93e5ba8df50304b578f7aee6402",
"text": "As far as I can see, this is an issue of the bank's policy rather than some legal regulation. That means that you'll need to work it out with the bank. To give you a couple of ideas to work with when you talk with them, maybe something from this list will work: Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6499f32fd053b9d2f1d298fbc677af4f",
"text": "\"I found the study \"\"The irrationality of payment behaviour\"\" accidentally while searching on the term \"\"DNB Study\"\" instead of \"\"D&B Study\"\". This study, which, when I followed the link, went to the web site dnb.nl (Dutch National Bank), instead of dnb.com (Dun & Bradstreet). It mentions all the salient points that I hear Dave Ramsey and others mention when they talk about studies on this subject of credit vs cash. Also, it cross references to many other studies by various researchers, banks, and universities. Is this the \"\"missing mythical DNB study?\"\" I'll let you decide. Relevant \"\"coincidental\"\" points from the study: To be fair and complete, I should mention that clearly the relevant parts of this DNB study are talking about discretionary spending. Auto-paying your mortgage with a card is clearly not going to cost you more (unless you somehow forget to pay off the card or some other silliness).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5d49eeba6439306dafda1540ce9d30c",
"text": "Exactly. Or if you prefer, they were not acting *as* banks when doing so. (Well, at least by the definition I gave, obviously. If you prefer a different definition, you get a different answer. Although I'm not sure there really is a useful definition of banking that would cover the behaviour you described.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b427ead79d6bc0ca641b104f8705fd3c",
"text": "I would presume this goes entirely through the credit card network rather than the banking network. I am guessing that it's essentially the same operation as if you had returned something purchased on a card to the store for credit, but I'm not sure whether it really looks like a vendor credit to the network or if it is marked as a different type of transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc17bf0c8d9eecdcd412998741cfc8f4",
"text": "Short answer: No. Some of those 'automatic' payments you've agreed to (presumably by signing a PAD form) are initiated in batch by the company whom you're buying from (phone company, cable company etc). So no, the bank has no indication from one day to the next what is coming through. And the request goes from say, your cable company to THEIR merchant bank to YOUR bank. Typically you have a monthly bill date which is fixed, and they should have terms established when it is due. If a payment comes back NSF they can retry once - but only for the same amount and I believe it is 14 days from the initial payment attempt. It makes it predictable, and you'd figure banks would clue in and start to predict for you when things may come out - but strictly speaking your bank doesn't know when or how much.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdde16f02a47c59d0ba7b213478cdd88",
"text": "Oh yes, it is absolutely the problem of the consumers. After all how is the bank to know how it should be doing business unless the customer explains it to them? Please read the other comments about how the customer has verified receipt of some critical document and then they claim that they don't have it. Sure they are very nice on the phone, but that doesn't help when I have to take time out of my work day to call them repeatedly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50b54ee0f2d50fba4547d1c2c497b452",
"text": "A debit card takes the funds right from your account. There's no 'credit' issued along the way. The credit card facilitates a short term loan. If you are a pay-in-full customer, as I am, there's a cost to lend the money, but we're not paying it. It's part of the fee charged to the merchant. Thus the higher transaction cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e5fe8aaa425cd08ca576a07c27c3f16",
"text": "You'd have to consult a lawyer in the state that the transaction took place to get a definitive answer. And also provide the details of the contract or settlement agreement. That said, if you clearly presented the check as payment (verbally or otherwise) and they accepted and cashed the check, and it cleared, you should have good legal standing to force them to finalize the payment. While they had every right to refuse the payment, and also every right to place a hold on the credit until the transaction cleared their bank, they don't have the right to simply claim the payment as a gift just because it came in a different form than they specified in the contract. Obviously this is a lesson learned on reading the fine print though. And, to be frank, it sounds like someone wants to make life difficult for you for whatever reason. And if that is the case I would refer back to my initial comment about contacting a lawyer in that state.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01a391a21426165ab94de05466668be1",
"text": "\"> Or just remember how much you spent. The purpose of my comment was to say the online balance isn't a true balance, not that I had trouble balancing a book. Except that you rather obviously *don't* comprehend what the meaning of \"\"true balance\"\" is. The balance the bank shows on it's online system (or it's statements) is very much a \"\"true balance\"\" **of the transactions the BANK is aware of** (i.e. the ones that have been processed). That you think the bank should somehow be \"\"magically aware\"\" of the fact that you just signed a credit card transaction -- or that you wrote a check and mailed it off to someone -- demonstrate that you lack a fundamental comprehension of the system. And the \"\"just remember how much you spent\"\" as an excuse for not properly (independently) **recording (and mathematically subtracting)** what you have spent... Is demonstrative of both ignorance AND laziness.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9195bb2a2faa4f1aa9f86cdf0eb07809",
"text": "If your gut told you to buy during the depths of '09, your gut might be well-calibrated. The problem is stock market declines during recessions are frequently not that large relative to the average long run return of 9%: A better strategy might be hold a percentage in equities based upon a probability distribution of historical returns. This becomes problematic because of changes in the definition of earnings and the recent inflation stability which has encouraged high valuations: Cash flow has not been as corrupted as earnings now, and might be a better indicator: This obviously isn't perfect either, but returns can be improved. Since there is no formulaic way yet conventionally available, the optimal primary strategy is still buy & hold which has made the most successful investor frequently one of the richest people on the planet for decades, but this could still be used as an auxiliary for cash management reserves during recessions once retired.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
eecbd0e25927705ef2a93231663274d3
|
How does a no-limit charge card affect your credit score?
|
[
{
"docid": "8d9c3a008d3b59f6749d8538c2abda64",
"text": "Apparently it is up to the credit card company on how they want to report your available balance. Another disadvantage to the no-limit credit card may not be apparent to most people, but it is something noted by organizations like The Motley Fool, which is expert in many issues of finance and investment. Part of your credit score, about 30%, considers the amount of money you have borrowed, and the limit on your present credit cards. A no-limit credit card company may report your limit as $0 if you have not used the card, or they may report a maximum limit available to you. They may not, nor are they obligated, to report times when you put tons of expenses on a credit card and then paid them off. While some companies will report your timely payments and paid off amounts, others simply report an extremely low limit. For instance if you spent $100 US Dollars (USD), your limit might be considered $100 USD, or it may merely be reported as zero. You’ll need to check with a credit card company on how they report payments and limits on a no-limit credit card before you obtain one. Some people who are scrupulous are paying off their cards at the end of each month suffer major losses to their credit score, without even realizing it, if their spending ability is rated at zero, or their payments don’t count toward showing credit worthiness. Source",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a1d1be500848552ce452b75771c8a430",
"text": "Well, you might take a minor hit to your credit score. This is snapshot of my credit utilization written for an article on my site. The point there was that zero card use actually dinged the score, but for you, going over the 20% level is the risk. It's not too large a hit, depending how high the utilization goes. I'd not lose sleep over it. Kind of you to help.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "80cf25b1ba15930ca2b8aa57dbb8796c",
"text": "Your credit score is based on your use of Debt. From wikipedia: Opening and closing bank accounts, buying or selling cars without debt, or even buying or selling houses without debt won't affect your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "88fde363be152b7f7dd7406505cf9fb2",
"text": "FICO score tracks credit, not checking or savings. Unless there was a credit line attached, no impact at all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd9aa0e20ca04d30ead7fc398af8e1ab",
"text": "\"Several events will always result in a reduction of your score, including: These will show up in the short term, but I don't think it's worth $40 per year in perpetuity to avoid this. These aren't serious \"\"black marks\"\" in the same category as missing payments, carrying too much debt, or foreclosures/evictions, etc. These effects are designed to signal issuers when someone acquires a large amount of credit in a very short period of time, which may indicate a greater risk. If your credit is good and you are using your other cards responsibly, closing the card (given the annual fee) would not cause me great concern if it were me. Since you are so much better of a risk than you likely were in college, you can also call Capital One, ask to speak with a supervisor, and ask them to drop the fee and increase your credit limit. They should be able to easily verify that you meet the requirements for other types of preferred cards they offer, and they should be willing to offer you improved terms rather than losing your business. It is very possible they simply haven't re-evaluated your risk since you initially applied. Also, remember that these types of effects determine only a portion of your overall score. Activity is also a major component. Rather than leaving an unused card open for history and debt-to-limit purposes only, I would also recommend having some minimum level of activity, such as an automatic bill payment, on each card you carry. The effect of using your cards over time will have a significant positive effect on your score. Best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59e5ecb0fe258452782762d4a7e06459",
"text": "Even if you can get a credit card with a $0 limit, that doesn't necessarily mean that the charges won't succeed. Some of my credit cards have gone over limit by a significant amount (e.g. 140% of limit) without any transactions being declined. The limit just means that the bank is allowed to decline the transaction, but they are also allowed to approve it anyway. So basically what you would have is a credit card where any transaction can always be declined or approved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c587adcca6e0ffcf1c18020848b9298",
"text": "There is only a catch if you swallow the hook. The hook is that the bank hopes you will use the increased credit limit to buy more stuff, and not pay what you owe before the interest-free period expires. This will allow them to charge their high interest rate on the outstanding balance. Now if you don't increase your spending, and keep paying your balance in full, nothing happens.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f298e784249ed9b824b177253cf6ca",
"text": "After doing some investigating, my employers contract with the credit card company has a clause that basically specifies that despite my name being on the credit card, and bills being sent to me, all liability is on the company. Additionally, the employer reserves the right to garnish wages in the event of a balance on the card. So it looks like it won't affect my credit score. I appreciate all of the advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a495a945460a40e2af146c24b9cb52f",
"text": "Credit scoring has changed since the time of this question (July 2017) and it is now possible that having a high available credit balance can negatively affect your credit score. ... VantageScore will now mark a borrower negatively for having excessively large credit card limits, on the theory that the person could run up a high credit card debt quickly. Those who have prime credit scores may be hurt the most, since they are most likely to have multiple cards open. But those who like to play the credit card rewards program points game could be affected as well. source",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "021ab4e60a9013fa5bf1683fee77c014",
"text": "\"If you look around online and read about credit scores, you'll find all kinds of information about what you should do to maximize your credit score. However, in my opinion, it just isn't worth rearranging your life just to try to achieve some arbitrary score. If you pay your bills on time and are regularly using a credit card, your score will take care of itself. Yes, you can cut up the card you don't like and keep the credit card account open. The bank may close your account at some point in the future because of a lack of activity, but if they do, don't worry about it. You have other accounts that you are using. Personally, I don't like having open credit accounts that I'm not using; I close accounts when I'm done with them. I realize that it goes against everything that you will read, but my score is very high and my oldest open credit card account is 2 years old. Don't let them scare you into credit activity that you don't want just to try to \"\"win\"\" at the credit score.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "088bc40143b1fd1c3a082150fd2b9a91",
"text": "Credit cards are meant to be used so generally it doesn't hurt your credit score to use them. To top it off you even get an interest grace period so you don't have to rush home and pay balances as soon as they're charged. In general you accrue charges during your statement period, we'll call it September 1 through September 30. The statement due date is something like 20 days after the close of the statement period, so we'll call it October 20. As long as you habitually pay your entire statement balance by the due date you will never pay interest. You charge your laptop on September 3, it shows up on your statement as $1,300, you pay $1,300 on October 18, you pay no interest. However, if you pay $1,000 on October 18 leaving a $300 balance to be carried in to the next statement period (a carried balance) you will pay interest. Generally interest is calculated based on your average daily balance during the statement period, which is now be the October 1 to October 31 period. You'll notice that you didn't pay anything until the October 18, that means the entire $1,300 will be included in your average daily balance up to the 18th of the month. Add to that, anything else you charge on the card now will be included in your average daily balance for interest charge calculation purposes. The moral of the story is, use your card, and pay your entire statement balance before the due date. Now how much will this impact your credit score? It's tough to say. Utilization is not a bad thing until it's a big number. I've read that 70% utilization and over is really the point at which lenders will raise an eyebrow and under 30% is considered excellent. If you have one card and $1,300 is a significant portion of your available limit, then yes you should probably pay it down quickly. Spend six or so months using the card and paying it, then call your bank and ask for a credit line increase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "141d091e91accc8eb555bedf199fb2ff",
"text": "I agree with JoeTaxpayer that you will be better off in the end if you can just not use your card you are better off in the long run. That said if you are determined to get a card you can control go to a credit union or local bank. Most of them will give you the credit limit you want. This may provide you with a card that you can make use of but know that you can not go wild. The down side is most of these will not be reward cards but my local credit union gave me a 7% card where my Chase card is at 18%(was 5% before the changes to credit card regulations).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c586acc7130c1efd832fbf1d1d35042",
"text": "Closing the card will be fine. The consequences are related to your available credit and actual/potential utilization. If you have less total credit, any credit you actually use will be a greater percentage of your total credit, manipulating your score downwards more greatly. The next consequence will be related to the age of your credit history, which is an average of your credit lines. This seems negligible and also beneficial for you, since your credit history is so young to begin with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "244dd81190d927e0ad3615b21d179ebe",
"text": "The first thing I assess when looking at new credit cards is whether it has no annual fee, the second thing I look at is how long the interest free period is. I always pay my credit card off in full just before the due date. Any rewards program is a bonus. My main credit card is with CBA, I have a credit limit of $20K and pay no annual fee. I get a bonus point for every $ I spend on it, for which I exchange for store gift cards to help with my everyday spending. Approximately 3500 point would get me a $25 gift card. But my main reward with the card is the interest I save by keeping my own money in a Home Loan Offset account whilst I spend with the Bank's money. Then I pay the full amount off by the due date so I do not pay any interest on the credit card. I only use my credit cards for purchases I would usually make anyway and to pay bills, so my spending would be the same with or without a credit card. I can usually save over $500 each year off my Home Loan interest and get about $350 worth of gift cards each year. If I didn't have any Home Loans then I would keep my money in a high interest depost account so I would be increasing my interest payments each year. Sure you can probably get credit cards with more generous rewards programs, but how much are you paying each year in annual fees, and if you don't have an interest free period and you don't pay off all the amount due each month how much are you paying in interest on the card? This is what you need to way up when looking at rewards programs on offer. Nothing is for free, well almost nothing !",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01264d3bf1b37ab9fb671b8d57b01293",
"text": "I've read multiple times that the way to rebuild the credit score is to get a credit card and then have some minor charges on it every month and have them paid in full every month. Old negative events age and this disciplined activity rebuild the score to some not to horrible levels. Now it's true that it's hard to get reasonably good credit cards when your credit score is poor. Yet it's not necessary to have a good credit card for this case - such things as large credit limit are not needed. All that's needed is a long grace period so that there's no interest between the moment a charge is done and a moment the bill is paid in full at the end of the month. Yes, the card may have rather high interest and rather low credit limit, but it doesn't really matter. I've read once on MSN Money that people are offered credit even while they're in the middle of bankruptcy, so it's not impossible to get a credit card in the described situation. Goes without saying that a lot of discipline will be needed to have all this implemented.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b0dfdbfbf5dd51940969b729167d69",
"text": "non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
49ff9ebde3610aafdffce6200eb36b37
|
(Theoretical) Paying credit cards with other credit cards
|
[
{
"docid": "104ae8a9ec8b6b78961094e0cd95e102",
"text": "If you had a CC issuer that allowed you to do bill-pay this way, I suspect the payment would be considered a cash advance that will trigger a fee and a pretty egregious cash advance specific interest rate. It's not normal for a credit payment portal to accept a credit card as payment. If you were able to do this as a balance transfer, again there would be fees to transfer the balance and you would not earn any rewards from the transferred balance. I think it's important to note that cash back benefits are effectively paid by merchant fees. You make a $100 charge, the merchant pays about $2.50 in transaction fee, you're credited with about $1 of cash back (or points or whatever). Absent a merchant transaction and the associated fee there's no pot of money from which to apply cash back rewards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "49b743482fb6c3ce7ded4219b2149524",
"text": "Three things prevent you from doing this: Credit cards generally don't accept other credit cards as payment. You could do this with a cash advance or balance transfer, but Cash advances and balance transfers usually have fees associated with them, negating any reward you might earn. Your card might have a no-fee balance transfer promotion going, but Cash advances and balance transfers generally aren't eligible for rewards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "394d3185971fd3b7cb4f7f7da47d51fc",
"text": "\"A \"\"balance transfer\"\" is paying one credit card with another. You probably get offers in the mail to do this all of the time. As other posters have noted, however, this usually comes with finance fees rather than the rewards that you get for normal purchases because it's written into your credit card agreement as a different class of transaction with different rules. I'm not sure if it's urban legend or true, but I have heard stories that suggest there were some \"\"loop holes\"\" in the earliest credit card reward plans that allowed for something like what you want. I doubt that any plan ever allowed exactly what you've written, but I've heard stories about people buying gift cards from merchants and then using the gift cards to pay their bill. This loop hole (if it ever existed) is closed now, but it would have allowed for essentially infinite generation of rewards at no cost to the cardholder. The banks and credit card companies have a lot of years of experience at this sort of thing now, so the threshold for you finding something that works and conforms with the cardholder agreement is pretty small.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d1dcb2257dda7f37eb2929dba47371bf",
"text": "No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79d2333883311c3f95c3dc99d8619d1d",
"text": "Not sure if this is possible... It is possible! It is called a balance transfer card and most of the major credit card companies offer them. It is possible to save a significant amount on interest during the grace period. However... Is this a viable option? Not really. Any card will charge you an upfront fee of 3% to 5% of the balance you are transferring. This really only buys you some time in case you are about to fall behind on payments. For many people it's just a way to shuffle around debt, digging themselves a little deeper into consumer debt with each transfer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f1ba347564bf022cb2ff4282dfce309",
"text": "As long as you can be trusted with a Credit Card i find that if you have a setup that uses three accounts: 1. your Credit Card, 2. 2. a high interest internet account (most of these accounts don’t have fees), 3. a savings account. The Method that works for me is: 1st i calculate my fixed monthly bills i.e Rent and utilities and then transfer it into my high interest account. for the month whenever i make a purchase i transfer the money into the high interest account ( this way I can keep a running balance of what money I have left to spend in the month. Then when the Credit Card bill comes I transfer the money out of the high interest account across to pay off the Credit Card ( this way you generate interest on the money which you would have spent throughout the month and still maintain $0 of interest from the Credit Card) over a year you can generate at least enough money in interest to go out for dinner on one of free flights!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fea990d65f8be890630604a5a90a96da",
"text": "JohnFx is more experienced than I am but I have paid off friends cards before. It was as simple as asking them the routing number of the bank that gave them the card and setting up an ACH with their card number. I guess this might be against some banks T&C but the CU I used to carry out the ACH gave me the go ahead as long as I did not dispute the payment later.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "809f3ea330e08069532bab097793e5ca",
"text": "\"I'd like to know if there is any reliable research on the subject. Intuitively, this must be true, no? Is it? First, is it even possible to discover the correlation, if one exists? Dave Ramsey is a proponent of \"\"Proven study that shows you will spend 10% more on a credit card than with cash.\"\" Of course, he suggests that the study came from an otherwise reliable source, Dun & Bradstreet. A fellow blogger at Get Rich Slowly researched and found - Nobody I know has been able to track down this mythical Dun and Bradstreet study. Even Dun and Bradstreet themselves have been unable to locate it. GRS reader Nicole (with the assistance of her trusty librarian Wendi) contacted the company and received this response: “After doing some research with D&B, it turns out that someone made up the statement, and also made up the part where D&B actually said that.” In other words, the most cited study is a Myth. In fact, there are studies which do conclude that card users spend more. I think that any study (on anything, not just this topic. Cigarette companies buy studies to show they don't cause cancer, Big Oil pays to disprove global warming, etc.) needs to be viewed with a critical eye. The studies I've seen nearly all contain one of 2 major flaws - My own observation - when I reviewed our budget over the course of a year, some of the largest charges include - I list the above, as these are items whose cost is pretty well fixed. We are not in the habit of \"\"going for a drive,\"\" gas is bought when we need it. All other items I consider fixed, in that the real choice is to pay with the card or check, unlike the items some claim can be inflated. These add to about 80% of the annual card use. I don't see it possible for card use to impact these items, and therefore the \"\"10% more\"\" warning is overreaching. To conclude, I'll concede that even the pay-in-full group might not adhere to the food budget, and grab the $5 brownie near the checkout, or over tip on a restaurant meal. But those situations are not sufficient to assume that a responsible card user comes out behind over the year for having done so. A selection of the Studies I am referencing -\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4da24f321fb782c3eadaf9e189c1c90",
"text": "Is my understanding okay ? If so, it seems to me that this system is rather error prone. By that I mean I could easily forget to make a wire some day and be charged interests while I actually have more than enough money on the check account to pay the debt. Which is where the credit card company can add fees so you pay more and they make more money. Don't forget that in the credit case, you are borrowing money rather than using your own. Another thing that bothers me is that the credit card apparently has a rather low credit limit. If I wanted to buy something that costs $2500 but only have a credit limit of $1500, can I make a preemptive wire from my check account to the VISA account to avoid facing the limit ? If so, what is the point for the customer of having two accounts (and two cards for that matter...) ? If you were the credit card company, do you believe people should be given large limits first? There are prepaid credit cards where you could put a dollar amount on and it would reject if the balance gets low enough. Iridium Prepaid MasterCard would be an example here that I received one last year as I was involved in the floods in my area and needed access to government assistance which was given this way. Part of the point of building up a credit history is that this is part of how one can get the credit limits increased on cards so that one can have a higher limit after demonstrating that they will pay it back and otherwise the system could be abused. There may be a risk that if you prepay onto a credit card and then want to take back the money that there may be fees involved in the transaction. Generally, with credit cards the company makes money on the fees involved for transactions which may come from merchants or yourself as a cash advance on a credit card will be charged interest right away while if you buy merchandise in a store there may not be the interest charged right away.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55b3495a0dcadf7185b657e7903d6ca0",
"text": "Sure of course you can do balance transfers like this but you are way late to the party and it has gotten to be pretty challenging finding new cards to transfer balances to. Before the current financial crisis in the US you could get enormous amounts of credit (2-5 times a person's annual income) and transfer balances to your bank account to collect interest . There were a bunch of ways to the transfer everything from direct deposit to your bank account to a balance transfer check payable to yourself to overpaying another credit card and requesting a refund. Over paying another account sets off a lot of red flags now days but other methods still work. The financial atmosphere has changed a lot and there are very few available cards with no balance transfer fees or capped fees and the interest rates are a lot lower now so it really isn't worth doing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "489b2ce0a09363c0ffe52fd41cc93bb1",
"text": "\"The best thing to do is to completely pay off one credit card, then apply the left over to the highest interest card. After that, ALL of your expenses that can be put on a credit card, should be put on the one that you just paid off. At the end of the month, pay off a different credit card and the highest interest, and move all your purchasing to that card. Keep going around the circle until you are able to pay them all off. Doing this will be good for your credit score as the debt on the cards will now be \"\"new\"\". If you're really desperate to increase your credit score (e.g. refinancing a house) you can use balance transfers to temporarily make it appear that you have zero debt but it will cost you some money, typically balance transfers cost something like $35 + 2%.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8487464f8491edcf0108c95c093c548",
"text": "You'll have to call your credit card issuer and ask them. Generally, credit cards don't do bank transfers, since its not a bank account per se. But it may be in some cases that there's an underlying bank account over which your credit card is managed, and then they might be able to do something like that. But we won't know, only your card issuer will.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "248a67266daf806c6b4ac027188129d7",
"text": "There is almost no reason to get a second credit card - this is a very good arrangement for your creditor but not for you. Credit cards have high rates of interest which you have to pay unless you pay the credit off every month. Therefore, increasing your total credit capacity should not be your concern. Since internet technology lets you pay off your balance in minutes online, there is no reason to have multiple cards in order to avoid running out of a balance. If, on the other hand, you do not pay your existing card off every month, than getting another card can be even more dangerous, since you're increasing the amount of debt you take on. I'd say at most it would make sense for you to grab a basic VISA, since most places do not accept AMEX. I would also considering cancelling the AMEX if you get the VISA, for reasons above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6e28aca217b83085a5143051ab9e18f",
"text": "The best solution I've been able to find for this is MoneyWiz, where both are logged into the same sync account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "736f2a7677a9a8907418e85a8c117afe",
"text": "At least in the US, many credit card companies offer statements that categorize your spending on that card and break it down by different categories depending on the merchant category code. Having different cards for each budget category can be a good idea if different cards have different rewards bonuses depending on categories: e.g. this card gives a high percentage back at gas stations, that one at grocery stores, another at restaurants, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f725677e51e7edbcb2e94868aebd0b7",
"text": "\"Could the individual [directly] use the credit cards for the down-payment? No, not directly. Indirectly, either via Cash Advance or \"\"Balance Transfer\"\" to a bank account with a promotional rate could work, however you may have to show the money sitting in a bank account and ready to go before the loan will be approved, which means the money you took out on the credit cards will show up when they pull your credit (unless you somehow timed it perfectly, and even if you did that you'd be breaking the law by lying on the disclosure statement about your current debts.) If he could, are there any negative consequences from doing so (other than probable high monthly payments on the cards)? Definitely. Let's assume we're talking about the indirect method of cash advance or balance transfer, since that is actually possible. There are 3 things to compare: Final thought: Most of the time the rate you pay on a non-mortgage loan will be higher than that of the mortgage, and furthermore mortgage interest is oftentimes tax deductible, so it would rarely ever make sense to shift would-be mortgage debt into another type of loan, down payment or otherwise.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e286a4b4698d26d497f4deb62bf8b825",
"text": "The implied intent is that balance transfers are for your balances, not someone else's. However, I bet it would be not only allowed but also encouraged. Why? Because the goal of a teaser rate is to get you to borrow. Typically there is a balance transfer fee that allows the offering company to break even. In the unlikely event that a person does pay off the balance in the specified time frame the account and is then closed, then nothing really lost. Its hard to find past articles I've read as all the search engines are trying to get me to enroll in a balance transfer. However, about 75% of 0% balance xfers result in converting to a interest being accrued. If you are familiar with the amount of household credit card debt we carry, as a nation, that figure is very believable. To answer your question, I would assume they would allow it. However I would call and check and get their answer in writing. Why? Because if they change their mind or the representative tells you incorrectly, and they find out, they will convert your 0% credit card to an 18% or higher interest rate for violating the terms. Same as if a payment was missed. From the credit card company's perspective they would be really smart to allow you to do this. The likelihood that your family member will pay the bill beyond two months is close to zero. The likelihood that a payment will be missed or late allowing them to convert to a higher rate is very high. This then might lead to you being overextended which would mean just more interest rates and fees. Credit card company wins! I would not be surprised if they beg you to follow through on your plan. From your perspective it would be a really dumb idea, but as you said you knew that. Faced with the same situation I would just pay off one or more of the debts for the family member if I thought it would actually help them. I would also require them to have some financial accountability. Its funny that once you require financial accountability for handouts, most of those seeking a donation go elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc7685ecec082bcae6aa5d12e0fb7397",
"text": "Wow, I had never heard of this before but I looked into it a bit and Mikey was spot on. It seems that if you don't pay attention to the fine print when making credit card purchases (as most of us tend to skip) many companies have stipulations that allow continued charges if they are recurring fees (monthly, yearly, etc.) even after you have cancelled the card.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
54323f87c2a61b878799cd4d347f0e2e
|
Isn't the subtraction of deprecation and amortization redundant in the calculation of Owner's Earnings?
|
[
{
"docid": "e3ddaf7271004c475e64b50bd5c65277",
"text": "\"This formula is not calculating \"\"Earnings\"\". Instead, it is calculating \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\". As the original poster notes, the \"\"Earnings\"\" calculation subtracted out depreciation and amortization. The \"\"Free Cash Flow from Operations\"\" adds these values back, but for two different reasons:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9ea67f1b92bdc440e9457e179db78aaa",
"text": "I cannot imagine an organizer being worth enough to consider depreciating the expense over a period of time greater than one year. Also, once you write in an organizer, it's pretty much worthless to anyone else. Talk to your accountant if you'd like, but I cannot see how you would classify a fancy organizer as a fixed asset.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c242c3c619edd67a2cb3f91a7f5277db",
"text": "However what actually appears to happen is that the 100k is invested into the company to fund some growth plan. So is it actually the case that E's company is worth 400k only AFTER the transaction? Is the 100k added to the balance sheet as cash and would the other 300k be listed as an IP asset? The investor gets 25% of the shares of the company and pays $100k for them, so Owner's Equity increases by $100k, and the company gets $100k more in cash. The $400k number is an implicit calculation: if 25% of the company is worth $100k, 100% of the company is worth $400k. It's not on the books: the investor is just commenting that they feel that they are being over-charged.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d4b583ea772631d043747ac5cdfb50f",
"text": "It's one of those things where it was meant, economically, for the first purpose (opportunity cost) but has been used by big corporations for the later since you have to have international divisions to really even make it work (to some degree it does on the state level; however, the tax breaks aren't really big enough for it to make sense since the Federal is the big one). It's also a huge reason why big corps have such low effective domestic tax rates on big profits and why the government is debating about restructuring tax law to prevent most forms of FTP'ing (you'd pay taxes on Gross Income essentially. It gets MUCH more complicated than that but France effectively does this now). Also, it's very much an accounting thing, and accountants tend not to have a big seat at the table. Hence, the reasoning behind stuff often get lost on upper mgmt (or they fire the accountant, etc.). That's a BIG part of why it often makes things worse even when when the principal makes sense economically...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb65dd7f717ccf993086167319f91fac",
"text": "You may be able to choose. As a small business, you can expense certain depreciable assets (section 179). But by choosing to depreciate the asset, you are also increasing the cost-basis of the property. Are you planning to sell the property in the next couple of years? Do you need a higher basis? Section 179 - Election to expense certain depreciable business assets",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc859b3b25fca1555b0fd5f6dddb8d2b",
"text": "As Chris pointed out: If your expenses are covered by the income exactly, as you have said to assume, then you are basically starting with a $40K asset (your starting equity), and ending with a $200K asset (a paid for home, at the same value since you have said to ignore any appreciation). So, to determine what you have earned on the $40K you leveraged 5x, wouldn't it be a matter of computing a CAGR that gets you from $40K to $200K in 30 years? The result would be a nominal return, not a real return. So, if I set up the problem correctly, it should be: $40,000 * (1 + Return)^30 = $200,000 Then solve for Return. It works out to be about 5.51% or so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebc5f2817ff75145777b6ba991c49cc5",
"text": "Profit = Sale price - Basis Basis = Purchase price - any depreciation taken, including expensing it.",
"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": "a4fe4886ea6863bd792a7277924d2b8b",
"text": "Purchase accounting requires that you mark assets, including PP&E to fair value. So let's say you bought a machine 5 years ago for $1,000 - you might have depreciated it to $250 on your balance sheet but it might actually be worth $900.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78a5d8a84aed1ae18df683af2601b1c9",
"text": "Hey, no worries at all. Like any business practice there are proper uses and abuses. First and foremost, companies should engage in allocation of capital that best serves their uses given prospects of 'returns' in a broad sense (this could very well include employee remuneration). After that, all excess funds should be distributed (through buybacks or dividends). There is without a doubt overincentivizing going on (i.e. buybacks preceding prudent capex or other investments) to boost C-suite pay. In other cases it is actually used to hide declining performance altogether (declining earnings compensated by decreasing outstanding shares). This is simply poor management using these tools. They would have most likely used others were these not made available to them (e.g underpaying/understaffing). It's an investors job to allocate capital that rewards good management practice. The problem is that this is an ideal made harder by obfuscation on the part of management, lack of governance and even the rise of passive management among others. I'm in private equity myself (with a strong focus on prudence and longevity of companies), so these are considerations that go without saying. I'm sometimes quite astonished what public companies get away with, but you can't blame tools for being used poorly or being available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b573ff1763f664a030871b1be7801af5",
"text": "Could be misunderstanding your context. But ev = equity + debt - cash. So don't think it makes sense for an equity holder to have an individual ev/ebitda different from the company's. Are you asking in context of valuing equity and debt from an ev/ebitda multiple?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8609add874cab91d7b7d8b8d9ef26692",
"text": "\"Straight Line Depreciation is the easiest method of depreciation, don't over think it. Straight Line = (Assets Cost - Assets Salvage Value)/Useful life In this case the Straight Line is $2m per year, it is not culmulative unless you are looking at accumulated depreciation account on the balance sheet. Here is a schedule of the depreciation: * Year 1 - $2m * Year 2 - $2m * Year 3 - $2m * Year 4 - $2m * Year 5 - $2m See, can't get much easier than that! Once you get into more complicated questions they'll throw tax rates at you and ask about cash flows, or the NPV of the cash flows. You need to take into account the fact that the Depreciation is not a \"\"cash expense\"\" but it does affect cash flow by reducing the taxable income of the project. Also, you need to consider the fact that the asset will be sold in year 5 and the value will need to be part of your cash flow and NPV calculations. I hope this was helpful, if not I'll try to do my best answering any other questions. Good Luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2da0e37099545e4632ce50e5d86a6d22",
"text": "\"A lot of financial software will calculate the value of operating leasess for you (bullet 2). E.g. Capital IQ, BB. What a lot of professionals do is \"\"reverse\"\" out EBITDA/EBIT etc. for: - non-recurring expenses (think big accounting changes, some impairments) - change operating expenses into capital leases to adjust the capital structure - occasionally change some operating expenses (e.g. options) because you are under the assumption if you take a company private that those expenses will not be relevant The whole point is simply to see the operating revenues/expenses of the firm\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a68e04504132a0f2f77cc815c32f537",
"text": "Ok - what's your starting point? Are you starting with equity value and then working your way back to an enterprise value? Then yes, you must subtract cash and add debt. If you're doing a DCF, you don't have to make any changes to the values at the end if you're looking for an enterprise value. If you're looking for an equity value, you would need to add cash and subtract debt. If you're simply applying a enterprise value multiple (such as EV / EBITDA) you don't need to make any changes. Just multiply the Company's EBITDA by the multiple in question. Enterprise values are supposed to be capital structure independent because they are only valuing the company on metrics that occur before the impact of the Company's capital structure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf3c52ae294bd1bbf9893e00073baa4d",
"text": "Securities or quite a few negotiable instruments can change title of ownership without any issue. Many at times the owner ship in implicit if you are holding a certain instrument. So for example in Stock its a fractional ownership in a company, this ownership transfers to the buyer from the seller without requiring any permission from the company. In case of say Loans, One cannot transfer the loan to some one else without the Banks permission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cdc14fda39e15aa5537599cf56abf0e0",
"text": "i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&1 and see if it is net or still to be included.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
bf9fe8456c96b18747e811aa2fa1a999
|
Cash or Bonds (UK)
|
[
{
"docid": "8bcb299542d5b53e6cf270068befe62c",
"text": "The 'appropriate' amount of cash/bonds to hold will be largely a matter of opinion, but here are the general reasons why having at least some is a good idea: Cash is very liquid, and bonds are often mostly liquid. This means you can access them very quickly, without taking on losses. To get the most liquidity out of your bonds, you can do what is called 'laddering'. This means that you take out different bond amounts with different maturity dates, and periodically renew them on a schedule, so that you always have some bonds maturing, which you can access without paying an interest penalty. You can look this term up online for more details. Cash and bonds are low risk. If you have absolutely no low-risk assets, then in the event of, say, a market crash, you may have no savings to fall back on. By owning some bonds, and some equities, you are able to earn a modest return, without being too risky. However, note that some bonds are just as risky as equities - any bond which pays an abnormally high interest rate does so because the entity backing the repayment (government, company, whomever) is thought to not be guaranteed to be able to do so. The 25% figure given by your author is his opinion on the appropriate mix of cash/bonds to equities, but there are many views on the matter. Consider that any 'rule of thumb' in personal finance should be for general consideration only.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "fc1f250f0736f98b454bf637e14291e7",
"text": "As average house prices continue to rise, almost 40% of homes in the UK are purchased with cash. Stage 1 – Finding a property you can afford Stage 2 – Making an offer Stage 3 – Organise a solicitor and surveyor Stage 4 – Finalising the offer and mortgage (in your case, cash with proof of funds, balance due at closing) Stage 5 – Exchanging contracts Stage 6 – Completion and final steps You don't need to prove where the money came from but, as you have said that you are a cash buyer, you do need to be able to prove that you have the cash to buy the house. So, assuming you have the money in an account with a bank or building society, you should be able to satisfy your solicitors by showing them a recent bank statement or passbook which clearly shows that you have whatever amount it is in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac9204147d2b0e164575c241e0977988",
"text": "In order to compare the two, you need to compare your entire portfolio, which is not just how much money you have, but how much stock. In both scenarios, you start with (at least, but let's assume) £20 and 0 stock. In your scenario, you buy 10 shares, leaving you with £0 and 10 shares. You then sell it at £1.50/share to cut your losses, leaving you with £15 and 0 shares. That concludes the first transaction with a net loss of £5. In a second transaction, you then buy 10 shares again at £1/share, leaving you with £5 and 10 shares. You are still down £15 from the start, but you also still have 10 shares. Any further profit or loss depends on what you can get for those 10 shares in the future. In a short sale, you borrow 10 shares and sell them, leaving you with £40 (your initial £20 plus what you just made on the short sale) and -10 shares of stock. At the end of the contract, you must buy 10 shares to return them; you are able to do so at £1.50/share, leaving you with £25 and 0 shares. At this point, your exposure to the stock is complete, and you have a net gain of £5.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e92639dfe3b96ba834caa1456ea2c9d2",
"text": "Cash would be the better alternative assuming both stocks take a major hit in ALL categories AND the Fed raise rates at the same time for some reason. Money market funds that may have relatively low yields at the moment would likely be one of the few securities not to be repriced downward as interest rates rising would decrease bond values which could be another crash as I could somewhat question how broad of a crash are you talking here. There are more than a few different market segments so that while some parts may get hit really hard in a crash, would you really want to claim everything goes down? Blackrock's graphic shows in 2008 how bonds did the best and only it and cash had positive returns in that year but there is something to be said for how big is a crash: 20%, 50%, 90%?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21d0c3dcd64ed588f9aa8af50c2612a9",
"text": "An ISA is a much simpler thing than I suspect you think it is. It is a wrapper or envelope, and the point of it is that HMRC does not care what happens inside the envelope, or even about extractions of funds from the envelope; they only care about insertions of funds into the envelope. It is these insertions that are limited to £15k in a tax year; what happens to the funds once they're inside the envelope is your own business. Some diagrams: Initial investment of £10k. This is an insertion into the envelope and so counts against your £15k/tax year limit. +---------ISA-------+ ----- £10k ---------> | +-------------------+ So now you have this: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy fund: +---------ISA-------+ | £10k of ABC | +-------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of ABC | +-------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £12k of cash | +-------------------+ Buy another fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £10k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Fund appreciates. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-----------------+ | £11k of JKL & £2k of cash | +-----------------------------+ Sell fund. This happens inside the envelope; HMRC don't care: +---------ISA-------+ | £13k of cash | +-------------------+ Withdraw funds. This is an extraction from the envelope; HMRC don't care. +---------ISA-------+ <---- £13k --------- | +-------------------+ No capital gains liability, you don't even have to put this on your tax return (if applicable) - your £10k became £13k inside an ISA envelope, so HMRC don't care. Note however that for the rest of that tax year, the most you can insert into an ISA would now be £5k: +---------ISA-------+ ----- £5k ---------> | +-------------------+ even though the ISA is empty. This is because the limit is to the total inserted during the year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ea1a50c2be082b1898f0ac78a08715d",
"text": "In the US, you would probably look at a certificate of deposit (CD). I imagine there is a similar financial product in the UK, but don't know first hand. I think it is wise to be risk averse in this situation, but be aware that your interest rate will be dismal for guaranteed returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aca4fb3b0682042c936dbfe844e5052f",
"text": "Well you have three main options in my opinion. For cash, or any assets you can convert to cash, you could purchase bonds with a maturity date close to what you are looking to lock your funds up for. While you could sell these on a secondary market, admittedly - however you have a justification you can provide to yourself as to why you cannot sell them. Fixed term deposits often have poor interest rates, but if you ask to withdraw your money early you often forfeit all of the interest you would have gained. While your money would not be locked up, it keeps it further out of your reach, just like bonds. Every step further away from your bank account the funds get, the less likely you are to surrender to giving away money that is rightfully yours. It comes with the added advantage of typically high-returns. Trust funds can be set up with anyone as the beneficiary, and provide legal barriers so long as the beneficiary isn't also the executor. While it can be expensive to do so, you could hire a lawyer who specialises in estate law to set up a trust fund you are the beneficiary of, which has stipulations as to how and when assets can be released. I didn't include this as one of the main three, because it doesn't allow you to specify exactly when funds are released to you, but in many countries (including the US) you have special tax advantaged retirement accounts, where funds are locked away until you retire. However, it is unfortunate you even need to think about this. Another thing to consider is that if people start pressuring you for money, you should cut them out of your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52a51f7367d454bf22824007f02cd520",
"text": "The main difference is that the ISA account like a Cash ISA shelters you from TAX - you don't have to worry about Capital Gains TAX. The other account is normal taxable account. With only £500 to invest you will be paying a high % in charges so... To start out I would look at some of the Investment Trust savings schemes where you can save a small amount monthly very cost-effectively - save £50 a month for a year to see how you get on. Some Trusts to look at include Wittan, City Of London and Lowland",
"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": "f4bd63cfd882adcf0dc880fd46b13a69",
"text": "Depending what your timeframe preferences are, here are a couple of options: Stock indexes: as per Fool's investing guide, historically this had the highest return / risk ratio. On a 5-year horizont, with no extra work, this seems the best option. Premium bonds, similar to most cash ISAs currently available, have a rather rubbish ROI ATM (~3-5% AER at max) Invest it into yourself, in the form of personal development, classes & courses, or starting a business. Disadvantage: this also will carry an opportunity cost in the form of your time. On a longer timeline, however, if this improves your market value only by 1%, that pays extreme dividends over the rest of your carrier. With a single grand at hand, I'd definitely recommend going for option 3 -considering yourself as an investing vehicle, and ask yourself: how can you best improve stakeholder value? You'd be surprised at the kind of results a single grand can make.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b1a8a2a609b0f853660a8786305f123",
"text": "just pick a good bond and invest all your money there (since they're fairly low risk) No. That is basically throwing away your money and why would you do that. And who told you they are low risk. That is a very wrong premise. What factors should I consider in picking a bond and how would they weigh against each other? Quite a number of them to say, assuming these aren't government bonds(US, UK etc) How safe is the institution issuing the bond. Their income, business they are in, their past performance business wise and the bonds issued by them, if any. Check for the bond ratings issued by the rating agencies. Read the prospectus and check for any specific conditions i.e. bonds are callable, bonds can be retired under certain conditions, what happens if they default and what order will you be reimbursed(senior debt take priority). Where are interest rates heading, which will decide the price you are paying for the bond. And also the yield you will derive from the bond. How do you intend to invest the income, coupon, you will derive from the bonds. What is your time horizon to invest in bonds and similarly the bond's life. I have invested in stocks previously but realized that it isn't for me Bonds are much more difficult than equities. Stick to government bonds if you can, but they don't generate much income, considering the low interest rates environment. Now that QE is over you might expect interest rates to rise, but you can only wait. Or go for bonds from stable companies i.e. GE, Walmart. And no I am not saying you buy their bonds in any imaginable way.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77d1da841dba32993180a71e1fdc9e29",
"text": "\"20-year Treasury Bonds are not equivalent to cash, not even close. Even though the bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, they are long-term debt and therefore their principal value will fluctuate considerably as market interest rates change. When interest rates rise, the market value of 20-year bonds will drop, and drop more than shorter-term bonds would. Your principal is not protected in the short term. Principal is only guaranteed returned at the 20-year maturity of those bonds. But, oops, there is no maturity on the 20-year bond ETFs because every year the ETF rolls the 19-year positions into new 20-year positions! ;-) For an \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" piece of a portfolio, I'd want my principal to be intact over the short term, and continually reinvested at the higher short-term rates as rates are rising. Reinvesting at short-term rates can be an inflation-hedge. But, money locked in for 20-years is a sitting duck for inflation. Still, inflation aside, why do we want our \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position to be relatively liquid and principal-protected? When it comes time to rebalance your portfolio after disastrous equity and/or bond returns, you've got in your cash component some excess weighting since it was unaffected by the disastrous performance. That excess cash is ready to be deployed to purchase equities and/or bonds at the lower current prices. Rebalancing from cash can add a bonus to your returns and smooth volatility. If you have no cash component and only equities and bonds, you have no money to deploy when both equities and bonds are depressed. You didn't keep any powder dry. And, BTW, I would personally keep a bit more than 3% of my powder dry. Consider a short-term cash deposit or good money-market fund for your \"\"equivalent to cash\"\" position.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7228ac919920c2b403555de25be31a4",
"text": "If you are really worried your best bet is to move all your cash from Sterling into a foreign currency that you think will be resilient should Brexit occur. I would avoid the Euro! You could look at the US Dollar perhaps, make sure you are aware of the charges for moving the money over and back again, as you will at some stage probably want to get back into Sterling once it settles down, if it does indeed fall. Based on my experience on the stock markets (I am not a currency trader) I would expect the pound to fall fairly sharply on a vote for Brexit and the Euro to do the same. Both would probably rebound quite quickly too as even if there is a Brexit vote it doesn't mean the UK Government will honour the outcome or take the steps quickly. ** I AM NOT A FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND HAVE NO QUALIFICATIONS AS SUCH **",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2dae3046106ad0fb5fd19585130bbb51",
"text": "cost of carry is a confusing term to use but this is what i was given to work with then again, once you factor in interest rate risk and default risk (if you do), what is a better term? it's not just cost of capital at that pt",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "589b41b03144ba911cc102a2020e1f09",
"text": "Just to add to @duffbeer703 comment, additionally, the cash value is NOT part of the death benefit. The policy is intended to grow the cash value to the point where it matches the death benefit and then it 'matures' and you get the cash. My point being, is that since they don't give you both, you are really transferring the reponsiblity from them to you over time, your savings (that you lose) becomes part of the death benefit and they supliment it with less and less over the years so that it would equal the death benefit. @duffbeer703 nailed it right on the head, buy term and invest the difference and once you've got your savings built, really the need for insurance isn't there any longer (if you've got 1/2 million saved, do you really need insurance?)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "747be3bebcd79dbf81948b93a3a6ae4b",
"text": "\"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable \"\"Money Market\"\" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you \"\"instant access\"\" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities. This is not exactly a perfect solution. Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest. In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest. In the best case, if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6731ec21966b93b1b25ca4a43c9fa08d
|
car purchase loan versus car collateral loan
|
[
{
"docid": "c80690c383f8d27b8c6dca8f9e944273",
"text": "Generally speaking personal loans have higher rates than car loans. During fairly recent times, the market for car loans has become very competitive. A local credit union offers loans as low as 1.99% which is about half the prevailing mortgage rate. In comparison personal loans are typically in the 10-14% range. Even if it made mathematical sense to do so, I doubt any bank would give you a personal loan secured by a car rather than car loan. Either the brain would not work that way; or, it would simply be against company policy. These questions always interest me, why the desire to maximize credit score? There is no correlation between credit score and wealth. There is no reward for anything beyond a sufficiently high score to obtain the lowest rates which is attained by simply paying one's bills on time. One will always be limited by income when the amount able to borrow is calculated regardless of score. I can understand wanting to maximize different aspects of personal finance such as income or investment return percentage, etc.. By why credit score? This is further complicated by a evolving algorithm. Attempts to game the score today, may not work in the future.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "67c1f9a423ceb1f692cfb733a892d559",
"text": "From personal experience (I financed a new car from the dealer/manufacturer within weeks of graduating, still on an F1-OPT):",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac5e3eceb0f3f7efed7542521895e212",
"text": "I have gotten a letter of credit from my credit union stating the maximum amount I can finance. Of course I don't show the dealer the letter until after we have finalized the deal. I Then return in 3 business days with a cashiers check for the purchase price. In one case since the letter was for an amount greater then the purchase price I was able drive the car off the lot without having to make a deposit. In another case they insisted on a $100 deposit before I drove the car off the lot. I have also had them insist on me applying for their in-house loan, which was cancelled when I returned with the cashiers check. The procedure was similar regardless If I was getting a loan from the credit union, or paying for the car without the use of a loan. The letter didn't say how much was loan, and how much was my money. Unless you know the exact amount, including all taxes and fees,in advance you can't get a check in advance. If you are using a loan the bank/credit Union will want the car title in their name.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9aa425c9c92adc20f4795526b3aebf2a",
"text": "Very good answers as to how 0% loans are typically done. In addition, many are either tied to a specific large item purchase, or credit cards with a no interest period. On credit card transactions the bank is getting a fee from the retailer, who in turn is giving you a hidden charge to cover that fee. In the case of a large purchase item like a car, the retailer is again quite likely paying a fee to cover what would be that interest, something they are willing to do to make the sale. They will typically be less prone to deal as low a price in negotiation if you were not making that deal, or at times they may offer either a rebate or special low to zero finance rates, but you don't get both.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e814218015e61c473d66135a4cfd495",
"text": "I agree with the deposit part. But if you are buying a new car, the loan term should meet the warranty term. Assuming you know you won't exceed the mileage limits, it's a car with only maintainence costs and the repayment cost at that point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c6a6d74cd53d39bcc7907a768865a60e",
"text": "Go to your local bank or credit union before talking to a dealership. Ask them if putting both names on the loan makes a difference regarding rates and maximum loan you qualify for. Ask them to run the loan application both ways. Having both names on the loan helps build the credit of the spouse that has a lower score. You may find that both incomes are needed for a car loan if the couple has a mortgage or other joint obligations. The lender will treat the entire mortgage payment or rent payment as a liability against the person applying for the loan, they won't split the housing payment in half if only one name will be on the car loan. Therefore sometimes the 2nd persons income is needed even if their credit is not as good. That additional income without a significant increase in liabilities can make a huge difference regarding the loan they can qualify for. Once the car is in your possession, it doesn't matter who drives it. In general the insurance company will put both spouses as authorized drivers. Note: it is almost always better to ask your bank or credit union about a car loan before going to the dealership. That gives you a solid data point regarding a loan, and removes a major complexity to the negotiations at the dealership.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d864190cdecc0a7b03e663b49b5604b",
"text": "It's my understand that leasing is never the better overall deal, with the possible exception of a person who would otherwise buy a brand new car every 2 or 3 years, and does not drive a lot of miles. Note: in the case of a company car, Canadian taxes let you deduct the entire lease payment (which clearly has some principal in it) if you lease, while if you buy you can only deduct the interest, and must depreciate the car according to their schedule. This can make leasing more attractive to those buying a car through a corporation. I don't know if this applies in the US. The numbers you ran through in class presumably involved calculating the interest paid over the term of the loan. Can you not just redo the calculation using actual interest and lease numbers from a randomly chosen current car ad? I suspect if you do, you will discover leasing is still not the right choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b2a2594b75ac36caa7ddca5ccd0290ae",
"text": "\"A car loan might be considered \"\"good\"\" debt, if the following circumstances apply: If, on the other hand, you only qualify for a subprime loan, or you're borrowing to buy a needlessly expensive car, that's probably not a good idea.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d7947f59d989822b8d8222238a55e55",
"text": "Without knowing the terms of the company leased car, it's hard to know if that would be preferable to purchasing a car yourself. So I'll concentrate on the two purchase options - getting a loan or paying in full from savings. If the goal is simply to minimize the amount paid for this car, then paying the full cost up-front is best, because it avoids the financing and interest charges associated with a loan. However, the money you would pay for this car would come out of somewhere (your savings). If your savings were in an investment earning a risk-adjusted return rate of, say, 5% APY and the loan cost 1% APY, you'd have more money in the long run by keeping as much money in your savings as possible, and paying the loan as slowly as possible, because the return rate on your savings is higher. Those numbers are theoretical, of course. You have to make a decision based on your expectation of the performance of your investments, and on the cost of the loan. But depending on your risk tolerance and the loan terms available to you, a loan may well make sense. This is especially true when loans costs are subsidized by manufacturers, who often offer favorable financing on new cars to drive demand. But even bank loans on cars can be pretty inexpensive because the car is a form of collateral with predictable future value. And finally, you should consider tax treatment -- not usually a consideration in purchases of cars by consumers in the US, but can vary due to business use and certainly may be different in India. See also: How smart is it to really be 100% debt free?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d981886fcd3d12405655510fc4a88ff",
"text": "There are many reasons for buying new versus used vehicles. Price is not the only factor. This is an individual decision. Although interesting to examine from a macro perspective, each vehicle purchase is made by an individual, weighing many factors that vary in importance by that individual, based upon their specific needs and values. I have purchased both new and used cars, and I have weighted each of these factors as part of each decision (and the relative weightings have varied based upon my individual situation). Read Freakonomics to gain a better understanding of the reasons why you cannot find a good used car. The summary is the imbalance of knowledge between the buyer and seller, and the lack of trust. Although much of economics assumes perfect market information, margin (profit) comes from uncertainty, or an imbalance of knowledge. Buying a used car requires a certain amount of faith in people, and you cannot always trust the trading partner to be honest. Price - The price, or more precisely, the value proposition of the vehicle is a large concern for many of us (larger than we might prefer that it be). Selection - A buyer has the largest selection of vehicles when they shop for a new vehicle. Finding the color, features, and upgrades that you want on your vehicle can be much harder, even impossible, for the used buyer. And once you have found the exact vehicle you want, now you have to determine whether the vehicle has problems, and can be purchased at your price. Preference - A buyer may simply prefer to have a vehicle that looks new, smells new, is clean, and does not have all the imperfections that even a gently used vehicle would exhibit. This may include issues of pride, image, and status, where the buyer may have strong emotional or psychological needs to statisfy through ownership of a particular vehicle with particular features. Reviews - New vehicles have mountains of information available to buyers, who can read about safety and reliability ratings, learn about problems from the trade press, and even price shop and compare between brands and models. Contrasted with the minimal information available to used vehicle shoppers. Unbalanced Knowledge - The seller of a used car has much greater knowledge of the vehicle, and thus much greater power in the negotiation process. Buying a used car is going to cost you more money than the value of the car, unless the seller has poor knowledge of the market. And since many used cars are sold by dealers (who have often taken advantage of the less knowledgeable sellers in their transaction), you are unlikely to purchase the vehicle at a good price. Fear/Risk - Many people want transportation, and buying a used car comes with risk. And that risk includes both the direct cost of repairs, and the inconvenience of both the repair and the loss of work that accompanies problems. Knowing that the car has not been abused, that there are no hidden or lurking problems waiting to leave you stranded is valuable. Placing a price on the risk of a used car is hard, especially for those who only want a reliable vehicle to drive. Placing an estimate on the risk cost of a used car is one area where the seller has a distinct advantage. Warranties - New vehicles come with substantial warranties, and this is another aspect of the Fear/Risk point above. A new vehicle does not have unknown risk associated with the purchase, and also comes with peace of mind through a manufacturer warranty. You can purchase a used car warranty, but they are expensive, and often come with (different) problems. Finance Terms - A buyer can purchase a new vehicle with lower financing rate than a used vehicle. And you get nothing of value from the additional finance charges, so the difference between a new and used car also includes higher finance costs. Own versus Rent - You are assuming that people actually want to 'own' their cars. And I would suggest that people want to 'own' their car until it begins to present problems (repair and maintenance issues), and then they want a new vehicle to replace it. But renting or leasing a vehicle is an even more expensive, and less flexible means to obtain transportation. Expense Allocation - A vehicle is an expense. As the owner of a vehicle, you are willing to pay for that expense, to fill your need for transportation. Paying for the product as you use the product makes sense, and financing is one way to align the payment with the consumption of the product, and to pay for the expense of the vehicle as you enjoy the benefit of the vehicle. Capital Allocation - A buyer may need a vehicle (either to commute to work, school, doctor, or for work or business), but either lack the capital or be unwilling to commit the capital to the vehicle purchase. Vehicle financing is one area banks have been willing to lend, so buying a new vehicle may free capital to use to pay down other debts (credit cards, loans). The buyer may not have savings, but be able to obtain financing to solve that need. Remember, people need transportation. And they are willing to pay to fill their need. But they also have varying needs for all of the above factors, and each of those factors may offer value to different individuals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a453b102c970df29de645d3513f34325",
"text": "\"Care to elaborate? It is my understanding that any asset can be rehypothecated at least in theory. By saying these car loans \"\"aren't\"\" rehypo'd, do you mean this is not the practice, or that there is a law/regulation prohibiting it?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8a3b86208adcc243e3092e47447862d",
"text": "It seems like there are a few different things going on here because there are multiple parties involved with different interests. The car loan almost surely has the car itself as collateral, so, if you stop paying, the bank can claim the car to cover their costs. Since your car is now totaled, however, that collateral is essentially gone and your loan is probably effectively dead already. The bank isn't going let you keep the money against a totaled car. I suspect this is what the adjuster meant when he said you cannot keep the car because of the loan. The insurance company sounds like they're going to pay the claim, but once they pay on a totaled car, they own it. They have some plan for how they recover partial costs from the wreck. That may or may not allow you (or anyone else) to buy it from them. For example, they might have some bulk sale deal with a salvage company that doesn't allow them to sell back to you, they may have liability issues with selling a wrecked car, etc. Whatever is going on here should be separate from your loan and related to the business model of your insurance company. If you do have an option to buy the car back, it will almost surely be viewed as a new purchase by the insurances company and your lender, as if you bought a different car in similar condition.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "298a3f25846f5a776770998f3b63329e",
"text": "Don't let the tail of credit score wag the dog of prudent financial planning. If you have a sufficient emergency fund in addition to the car cost, then buying the car for cash is to my mind a better plan. But if the car purchase would deplete your emergency fund, then I'd go for the loan. Cash in hand gives you optionality that can be very valuable when things go wrong. And credit will be withdrawn at exactly the most painful moment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ede0311d87e2bff0e8d2762637c840e7",
"text": "this would make sense assuming debt payments incl. interest to the market for the debt assumed to purchase said boat/yacht is less than the lease payments over the life of both terms. If your lease payments are lower than term loan pmts incl. interest (or a similar debt instrument) then OP would still be right. TVM is irrespective of a competitors (or lessor in this case) Kc. Although, this goes completely out the window if it's a bond-like debt vehicle since those cash flows are distributed in a completely different manner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d46e4f9ed7e9e8d566747dd6c2d59a8",
"text": "This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d02ad88f03651a0bcbdb4e2ac6e9bdcf
|
Do the gain and loss during futures rollover each month will be even out in long run?
|
[
{
"docid": "bc1c0fc5cf69b8f5f14f16e716ab63a4",
"text": "There are 2 schools of thought in determining the price of a future contract in a day prior to expiration. The cost of carry model, states that the price of a future contract today is the spot price plus the cost of carrying the underlying asset until expiration minus the return that can be obtained from carrying the underlying asset. FuturePrice = SpotPrice + (CarryCost - CarryReturn) The expectancy model, states that the price of the futures contract depends on the expectation about the spot market's price in the future. In this case, the price of the future contract will diverge from the spot price depending on how much the price is expected to rise or fall before expiration. A few glossary terms: cost of carry For physical commodities such as grains and metals, the cost of storage space, insurance, and finance charges incurred by holding a physical commodity. In interest rate futures markets, it refers to the differential between the yield on a cash instrument and the cost of funds necessary to buy the instrument. Also referred to as carrying charge. spot price The price at which a physical commodity for immediate delivery is selling at a given time and place. The cash price.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3d1babfc30d5ff74831c9c3ab4156b3c",
"text": "\"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4ee5b35b0455e555d9c22058508cc985",
"text": "\"From Intuit: \"\"Yes, but there are limits. Losses on your investments are first used to offset capital gains of the same type. So short-term losses are first deducted against short-term gains, and long-term losses are deducted against long-term gains. Net losses of either type can then be deducted against the other kind of gain.\"\" \"\"If you have an overall net capital loss for the year, you can deduct up to $3,000 of that loss against other kinds of income, including your salary, for example, and interest income. Any excess net capital loss can be carried over to subsequent years to be deducted against capital gains and against up to $3,000 of other kinds of income.\"\" So in your case, take the loss now if you have short term gains. Also take it if you want to take a deduction on your salary (but this maxes at 3k, but you can keep using an additional 3k each year into the future until its all used up). There isn't really an advantage to a long term loss right now (since long term rates are LOWER than short term rates).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "44bd46e3484fc1c98a0eebad6293c006",
"text": "First, accept the fact that you are not going to be able to predict the ups and downs of the market well enough for that to be a viable strategy. In the long run these schemes tend to be losers because it forces you to guess correctly twice (When to get out, when to get back in) and missing either date can cost you. A better strategy to benefit from market volatility:",
"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": "9b93344044b6216beaa023228a7c575e",
"text": "There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b58965eac1ac22be6c97704ca003a1f0",
"text": "My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f394647d4735e0a8711fdef592b1ab1b",
"text": "\"If you're simply a futures speculator, then yes, it does seem like gambling. If you're a farmer producing a few thousand bushels of wheat, futures can be a mechanism for you to hedge against certain kinds of market risk. Same if you're running a heating oil company, etc. I just read somewhere that the bad spring weather in South Dakota has prevented farmers from getting corn planted -- nothing is in the ground yet. This is \"\"objective data\"\" from which you might infer that this year's corn harvest could be late and/or smaller than normal. So maybe if you're a buyer for General Mills, you use corn futures to control your costs. In this case you'd have some idea based on experience what to expect for the price of corn, what your production line requires for input, how much you can charge for finished product, etc. These all factor in to the price you'd be willing to pay for corn futures.\"",
"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": "ac70de86f7432cca214663a85920e3dc",
"text": "A Section 1256 contract is any: Non-equity options include debt options, commodity futures options, currency options, and broad-based stock index options. A broad-based stock index is based upon the value of a group of diversified stocks or securities (such as the Standard and Poor's 500 index). 60% of the capital gain or loss from Section 1256 Contracts is deemed to be long-term capital gain or loss and 40% is deemed to be short-term capital gain or loss. What this means is a more favorable tax treatment of 60% of your gains. http://www.tradelogsoftware.com/tax-topics/futures/ It's a really wierd rule (arbitraty 60% designation, so broad, etc), but section 1256 contracts get preferential tax treatment and that's what Buffett's talking about.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b259209bb6129f9b253bc637549636c",
"text": "\"The problem with daily-rebalanced \"\"inverse\"\" or \"\"leveraged\"\" ETFs is that since they rebalance every day, you can lose money even if your guess as to the market's direction is correct. Quoting from FINRA'S guide as to why these are a bad idea: How can this apparent breakdown between longer term index returns and ETF returns happen? Here’s a hypothetical example: let’s say that on Day 1, an index starts with a value of 100 and a leveraged ETF that seeks to double the return of the index starts at $100. If the index drops by 10 points on Day 1, it has a 10 percent loss and a resulting value of 90. Assuming it achieved its stated objective, the leveraged ETF would therefore drop 20 percent on that day and have an ending value of $80. On Day 2, if the index rises 10 percent, the index value increases to 99. For the ETF, its value for Day 2 would rise by 20 percent, which means the ETF would have a value of $96. On both days, the leveraged ETF did exactly what it was supposed to do—it produced daily returns that were two times the daily index returns. But let’s look at the results over the 2 day period: the index lost 1 percent (it fell from 100 to 99) while the 2x leveraged ETF lost 4 percent (it fell from $100 to $96). That means that over the two day period, the ETF's negative returns were 4 times as much as the two-day return of the index instead of 2 times the return. That example is for \"\"just\"\" leveraging 2x in the same direction. Inverse funds have the same kind of issue. An example from Bogleheads Wiki page on these kinds of funds says that over 12/31/2007 to 12/31/2010, The funds do exactly what they say on any given day. But any losses get \"\"locked in\"\" each day. While normally a 50% loss needs a 100% gain to get back to a starting point, a fund like this needs more than a 100% gain to get back to its starting point. The result of these funds across multiple days doesn't match the index it's matching over those several days, and you won't make money over the long term. Do look at the further examples at the links I've referenced above, or do your own research into the performance of these funds during time periods both when the market is going up and going down. Also refer to these related and/or duplicate questions:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a43d0a13a01babe7f87b6ccb7c57d41d",
"text": "the strategy is tested all the way to 97. how is the continuous series backadjusted? the emini is rolledover and Ratio back adjusted to the 2nd nearest contract, 9 days prior to expiration. since it is an intraday trade, the discrepancy to the real thing should be next to irrelevant. but comparing it to the spx could make it interesting. what would be a good format to present the results ? jpeg? pdf ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fd24a7a18ae6dee7c86ef01815fefa1",
"text": "\"The emphasis of \"\"stop loss\"\" is \"\"stop\"\", not \"\"loss\"\". Stop and long term are contradictory. After you stop, what are you going to do with your cash? Since it's long term, you still have 5+ years to before you use the money, do you simply park everything in 0.5% savings account? On the other hand, if your investment holds N stocks and one has dropped a lot, you are free to switch to another one. This is just an investment strategy and you are still in the market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d02333fab4076506ce124c981619d",
"text": "If you're talking about just Theta, the amount of decay due to the passage of time (all else being equal), then theoretically, the time value is a continuous function, so it would decay throughout the day (although by the day of expiry the time value is very, very small). Which makes sense, since even with 15 minutes to go, there's still a 50/50 shot of an ATM option expiring in-the-money, so there should be some time value associated with that one-sided probability. The further away from ATM the option is, the smaller the time value will be, and will be virtually zero for options that are deep in- or out-of-the-money. If you're talking about total time value, then yes it will definitely change during the day, since the underlying components (volatility, underlying price, etc.) change more or less continuously.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6750caf3b3fe1f4073faf6793ceaa7f3",
"text": "There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b0d6167a19d4ea85bd2890867de5a6ac",
"text": "This is not hypothetical, this is an accurate story. I am a long-term investor. I have a bunch of money that I'd like to invest and I plan on spreading it out over five or six mutual funds and ETFs, roughly according to the Canadian Couch Potato model portfolio (that is, passive mutual funds and ETFs rather than specific stocks). I am concerned that if I invest the full amount and the stock market crashes 30% next month, I will have paid more than I had to. As I am investing for the long term, I expect to more than regain my investment, but I still wouldn't be thrilled with paying 30% more than I had to. Instead, I am investing my money in three stages. I invested the first third earlier this month. I'll invest the next third in a few months, and the final third a few months after that. If the stock market climbs, as I expect is more likely the case, I will have lost out on some potential upside. However, if the stock market crashes next month, I will end up paying a lower average cost as two of my three purchases will occur after the crash. On average, as a long-term investor, I expect the stock market to go up. In the short term, I expect much more fluctuation. Statistically speaking, I'd do better to invest all the money at once as most of the time, the trend is upward. However, I am willing to trade some potential upside for a somewhat reduced risk of downside over the course of the next few months. If we were talking a price difference of 1% as mentioned in the question, I wouldn't care. I expect to see average annual returns far above this. But stock market crashes can cause the loss of 20 to 30% or more, and those are numbers I care about. I'd much rather buy in at 30% less than the current price, after all.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
90d902884e98b515ec0351942853e544
|
Will having a secondary signee with bad credit on a mortgage raise or lower interest?
|
[
{
"docid": "116bc8e0713546aaf5c0be5a63134aae",
"text": "between two people purchasing a house together, one with good and one with bad credit, will having both persons on the loan raise the interest rates. If the house deed is on both names, generally the Bank would insist the loan should also be on both of your names. This to ensure that Bank has enough leverage to recover the house in case of default. If one of you has bad credit, bank would raise the interest rate, assumption that bad credit would drag the good credit and force him to some activities / actions that could stretch the finance of one with good credit. If timely payments are not made, it would make your good credit to bad. If the house deed is on only on your name and you can get the loan on your own, this would be a better position. If the house deed is on only on your name and you would like to loan to be on both names, then the positive side is credit score of the person with bad credit would start showing improvement over period, provided both of you make timely payments. As pointed out by keshlam, there are enough question where people have entered into agreement without deciding what would happen if they separate. There is no right / wrong answer. It would be best you decide how it would be with respect to the ownership in the house and with respect to payments and if in worst case you part ways, how the settlement should look like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "944043c4c9d8348c585222be3451c1ef",
"text": "Generally speaking the lower credit score trumps. In the case you cite, the lower credit score will prevail. However, you may need to do exactly that in order to qualify for the loan income wise. There are two factors when obtaining a mortgage, really all loans, but more so with a mortgage: the likeliness to repay (credit score), and your ability to service the debt. This last one is a combination of income and debt-to-income ratio. If you don't have enough income to qualify for the loan or fail to meet the debt to income ration, you may have to use your GF's income to qualify despite her poor credit. You might want to see past posts about buying property with non-spouses. It could work, but generally it requires a lot of legal work before closing on the deal. Avoiding this will lead to tales of woe.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "271d50999a71a5a43299095b7e9d0717",
"text": "\"Usually not the total interest, but all interest accrued and unpaid to date. This is called the \"\"Loan Payoff Amount\"\", and repays the bank their principal plus the \"\"true\"\" cost of capital on that principal since your last amortized payment (which is probably never, since you just signed the loan papers). There may also be a \"\"prepayment penalty\"\". This is something that should have been disclosed to you if it exists, but it's fairly rare in U.S. mortgages anymore. The theory is, the bank got the money they paid you at the start of the loan by selling a bond package backed by your mortgage and others of similar credit history and/or about the same time (a \"\"mortgage-backed security\"\"). By turning around and paying early, you meet your obligation, but the bank is now stuck with at least 10 years of quarterly coupon payments on that bond, which they were expecting to pay using your mortgage interest. For their trouble, you would pay an additional amount that either covers their \"\"call price\"\" on the portion of the bonds used for your principal, or simply buys them the time to re-issue a new mortgage using your repaid principal to back the bond again. In the modern housing market, such a prepayment penalty is very rare, because so many lenders are willing to give you a mortgage without one, and so many buyers balk at the thought of having to pay more if they pay early; the whole point is to pay less by paying early. Just something to look up in your mortgage documentation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "429d032007dcb3fc973f02149c9d81d6",
"text": "Banks in New Zealand tend to take a lien that is higher than the amount of the loan, so that your only option for a second mortgage is with them. ASB wanted 50% more than the value of the loan when I had my mortgage with them. Of course, with house price inflation the way it's been in NZ, the value of your house may have outstripped the lien anyway, and you can mortgage the rest of it with anyone you like. I suspect your lawyer will need to inform the other lienholder, but you don't need their permission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "512d7c4e1f8831007a9b824440f78073",
"text": "Only if (or to put it even more bluntly, when) they default. If your friend / brother / daughter / whoever needs a cosigner on a loan, it means that people whose job it is to figure out whether or not that loan is a good idea have decided that it isn't. By co-signing, you're saying that you think you know better than the professionals. If / when the borrower defaults, the lender won't pursue them for the loan if you can pay it. You're just as responsible for the loan payments as the original borrower, and given that you were a useful co-signer, probably much more likely to be able to come up with the money. The lender has no reason to go after the original borrower, and won't. If you can't pay, the lender comes after both of you. To put it another way: Don't think of cosigning as helping them get a loan. Think of it as taking out a loan and re-loaning it to them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0870e523982036c36e03fbd0f90bfa45",
"text": "It doesn't matter to the credit agencies if there is a co-signer or not. However, your family member will need to take into consideration if they are willing to be responsible for the loan in the event you are unable to make payments. Being a co-signer means they are agreeing to pay the loan amount. It will also impact their credit score/report, either improve it if all goes well, or destroy it if neither one of you are able to pay the loan. So to you, assuming you can pay all the payments and not default, it makes no difference. But to the co-signer, it could create a huge impact. https://www.thebalance.com/does-co-signing-affect-credit-315368",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2cbdeaba89cdcfdfdb6a2a852cf51ba",
"text": "\"Based on your information... The house is $130,000 all in (this might not be the case) Your payment term is 30 years. Your interest rate is about 7.35%. Your payments are about $895.66 Your total payments will total $322,438.95 That's not a very good interest rate for a mortgage, but this might be due to poor credit or limited credit history, too low income, or too much home value being financed (or a combination of the above and other factors). Northern Alabama may not specifically be higher interest rate: it might, honestly, just be you. The reason that you're paying $320,000 is that you're taking $130,000 from a bank and promising to pay it back with interest. Keep in mind, that's over *thirty years.* That's a LONG time. And the bank needs to earn enough interest to combat inflation (roughly 2% annually, generally). During that time, the bank *can't* invest that money elsewhere, return it to depositors, etc. A good rule to keep in mind is the \"\"rule of 72.\"\" It's a simple trick to determine, based on an interest rate, how quickly the value of something will double (in this case, the value of your loan payments). If your interest rate was exactly 7.2%, this method would calculate 10 years until doubling. In your case, 72 / 7.35 = 9.7959 years. Now, you're paying off your loan simultaneously, which lowers your interest over time, so your payments total 2.48x of loan value at origination. That still sucks, but remember, it's over a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5c182f9a317adac4162135e9842a282",
"text": "i would recommend that you establish a landlord/tenant relationship instead of joint ownership (ie 100% ownership stake for one of you vs 0% for the other). it is much cleaner and simpler. basically, one of you can propose a monthly rent amount and the other one can chose to be either renter or landlord. alternatively, you can both write down a secret rental price offer assuming you are the landlord, then pick the landlord who wrote down the smaller rental price. if neither of you can afford the down payment, then you can consider the renter's contribution an unsecured loan (at an agreed interest rate and payment schedule). if you must have both names on the financing, then i would recommend you sell the property (or refinance under a single name) as quickly as possible when the relationship ends (if not before), pay the renter back any remaining balance on the loan and leave the landlord with the resulting equity (or debt). in any case, if you expect the unsecured loan to outlive your relationship, then you are either buying a house you can't afford, or partnering on it with someone you shouldn't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "213f18ac19a519aadc9ab2415ad7cc9e",
"text": "I wouldn't like to say either way what you should do, not being an financial advisor or lawyer, but I did find an interesting article on nytimes.com: Walk Away From Your Mortgage! that you might also find helpful to frame your decision. It has some interesting information on defaults, it says this: Mortgage holders do sign a promissory note, which is a promise to pay. But the contract explicitly details the penalty for nonpayment — surrender of the property. The borrower isn’t escaping the consequences; he is suffering them. In some states, lenders also have recourse to the borrowers’ unmortgaged assets, like their car and savings accounts. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond found that defaults are lower in such states, apparently because lenders threaten the borrowers with judgments against their assets. But actual lawsuits are rare. And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2afadb028d4d5d23a772479a3d008b2",
"text": "\"You owe $20,000 to a loanshark, 1% per week interest. I'm happy to get 1% per month, and trust you to pay it back, so I lend you the $20,000. The first lender got his money, and now you are paying less interest as you pay the loan back. This is how a refi works, only the first bank won't try to break the legs of the second bank for moving into their business. This line \"\"reinvested the money into the mortgage to lower his monthly payments\"\" implies he also paid it down a bit, maybr the new mortgage is less principal than the one before.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24ce5118de0a6de657638a8502dbeda9",
"text": "It appears that co-signing does impact your debt-to-income ratio, at least in the US. An article on Kiplinger says: An article on Forbes agrees saying: There is a similar question here.",
"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": "03c1690b83249edd54f7e6a09e48bd72",
"text": "\"That \"\"something\"\" you are signing means you are liable for the mortgage payments - yes, all of them - if he can't or won't pay at any point. The limit on what the bank will lend him based on his salary is there for a reason - they don't expect him to be able to keep up repayments if they lend him more (or more precisely, there's a big risk that he won't). Don't forget that even if he swears up and down to you that he can afford them, interest rates can rise; this is a 25 or 30 year commitment you would be making. Interest rates are at a historic low and the only way from here is up; in my living memory rates have been 12% or even 15%. As a very rough rule of thumb, for every £100k borrowed, every additional 1% on the interest rates costs an additional £100 on your monthly payment. Also, the \"\"Transitional Arrangement\"\" is not without its own fees and the bank won't let him simply take you off the mortgage unless they are convinced he can keep up the repayments on his own, which they clearly aren't. Also thanks to @Kat for the additional good point that being on the hook for your friend's mortgage will prevent you from being able to get a mortgage yourself while the liability still exists, or at least severely limit your options. No matter how many times you protest \"\"but I'm not paying any money for that!\"\" - it won't help. Another point: there are various schemes available to help first time buyers. By signing up for this, you would exclude yourself from any of those schemes in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a12d8076c8f121fd8555d860d0e17859",
"text": "A second mortgage is a loan taken out on your house while you still have another mortgage secured by your house. They are a secured loan as they use the borrower’s home as security. Some advantages of Second Mortgages: Some important points to consider when you take a second mortgage If you stop making payments, your lender will be able to take your home through foreclosure, which can cause serious problems for you and your family. Second mortgages can be expensive. You’ll need to pay numerous costs for things like credit checks, appraisals, origination fees, and more. The mortgage rates are typically lower than credit card interest rates, but they’re often slightly higher than your first loan’s rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c68d17b243300bf223d276fc6c364f4",
"text": "Yes, there are times when co-signing is the right choice. One is when you know more about the person than the loan issuer does. Consider a young person who has just started working in a volatile field, the kind of job where you can be told on Friday that you only get one shift next week but things might pick up the week after, and who makes maybe $12 an hour in that job. You've done the math and with 40 hour weeks they can easily afford the loan. Furthermore, you know this person well and you know that after a few weeks of not enough shifts, they've got the gumption to go out and find a second job or a different job that will give them 40 hours or more a week. And you know that they have some savings they could use to ensure that no payments will be missed even on low-wage weeks. You can cosign for this person, say for a car loan to get them a car they can drive to that job, knowing that they aren't going to walk away and just stop making the payments. The loan issuer doesn't know any of that. Or consider a young person with poor credit but good income who has recently decided to get smart about money, has written out a budget and a plan to rehabilitate their credit, and who you know will work passionately to make every payment and get the credit score up to a place where they can buy a house or whatever their goal is. Again, you can cosign for this person to make that happen, because you know something the lender doesn't. Or consider a middle aged person who's had some very hard knocks: laid off in a plant closing perhaps, marriage failure, lost all their house equity when the market collapsed, that sort of thing. They have a chance to start over again somewhere else and you have a chance to help. Again you know this isn't someone who is going to mismanage their money and walk away from the payments and leave you holding the bag. If you would give the person the money anyway (say, a car for your newly graduated child) then cosigning instead gives them more of a sense of accomplishment, since they paid for it, and gives them a great credit rating too. If you would not give the person the entire loan amount, but would make their payments for many months or even a year (say, your brother's mortgage for the house where he lives with a sick wife and 3 small children), then cosigning is only making official what you would have done anyway. Arrange with the borrower that if they can't make their payments any more, you will backstop them AND the item (car, house, whatever) is going up for sale to cover your losses. If you don't think you could enforce that just from the strength of the relationship, reconsider co-signing. Then sign what you need to sign and step away from it. It's their loan, not yours. You want them to pay it and to manage it and to leave you out of it until it's all paid off and they thank you for your help. If things go south, you will have to pay, and it may take a while for you to sell the item or otherwise stop the paying, so you do need to be very confident that the borrower is going to make every single payment on time. My point is just that you can have that confidence, based on personal knowledge of character, employment situation, savings and other resources, in a way that a lender really cannot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a40eee5445e687b0de14606db987a66",
"text": "Well, it sounds like you have two options: 1) Continue to jointly own the house. 2) Compensate her for her equity and get the title transferred. I hate to tell you this, but she is entitled to half of the equity regardless of how much she paid into it. That said, she is still on the hook equally for the loan amount, but it won't do you any good if she is not willing to pay. Also, option 2 probably isn't a good deal for your co-signer as she would still be liable for the entire loan loan (just as you are) regardless of the title.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde",
"text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1e59b32fc57b54555bb80e9ed6b0dca9
|
Should I participate in a 401k if there is no company match?
|
[
{
"docid": "194bc6ba5c4129ec87feafec8cf788d9",
"text": "With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb5df2a06d67ee66755cb6d8d65d8c2e",
"text": "Another consideration that is not in the hard numbers. Many people, myself included, find it hard to have the discipline to save for something that is so far off. The 401K plan at work has the benefit of pulling the money out before you see it, so you learn to live on what is left more easily. Also, depending on the type of 401K it attaches penalties to using the money early disincentive you to pull it out for minor emergencies.",
"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": "8e3db5c45ccaa6589d0bcc62baed7712",
"text": "\"Your question has a built in faulty premise. \"\"ASSUMING a person knows how to use and invest their money wisely\"\" I'd ask if you were wise enough to beat the investments offered in your 401(k) after expenses, and with respect to the potential tax savings. Then, since I'm a proponent of \"\"deposit to the match, even if you have to eat rice and beans to find the cash to do\"\" I'll extend the question to ask if you can beat the choices taking the match into account. 401(k) - Your $1000 starts as $1500 and has a tax due on withdrawal years later. AeroAccount - You start with $750 (after the tax) and might spend a decade before hitting $1500. Start your own company? That might be another story. But to invest in the market and still beat the matched 401(k) takes a bit more wisdom than I'd claim to have.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6d77235a21a853831a355be838e8dc5",
"text": "It depends on the vesting schedule and the likelihood you'll be there long enough to get any vesting. A typical 6 year schedule gets you 20% after 2 years. You already know you'll be there 1 year, so now you need to decide if you'll last 2 years. Unless you know for sure you won't last 2 years, you should take the match on the 4%. Suppose your retirement plan earns 10%. If you leave before 2 years, compared with your 18% you're only behind by 8% return. But if you last 2 years, you'd be making a 32% return on that same amount. After 3 years you'd make 54%, and up it goes from there until you hit a 120% return after 6 years. I'd take the match simply because you have a lot more to gain than you have to lose if you leave early.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae6624165f7fd30a880665a79b3ea4e5",
"text": "I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6913c3128a087e10f462defd06dd3ae5",
"text": "\"Great. 10% of the pre-tax 450 you'd make in a week of 40 hours' work means you could buy about 2 shares a month. I assume they pay bi-weekly, so you can qualify to buy a share. 25% 401k contribution off less than 30k annual salary is peanuts to the company, and peanuts to the employee by retirement. Competitively speaking, thats actually a rather bare-bones retirement package, isn't it? I hope that health care waves covers deductables 100% - otherwise a yearly checkup will be 10% of your takehome that week in addition to the hours you take off work and get \"\"points\"\" under their draconian \"\"no days off ever\"\" policy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8418b64bc7a531370f7aca1b38f565ab",
"text": "The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age. So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it. Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like. The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that. In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f06abec4321d22e0e37aab2bef6014d2",
"text": "\"Congratulations on the job offer! That type of matching sounds good if you plan to stay at a company for more than a year. My experience has been that 401k matching can range from 2% up to 8% for your typical starting job, so a total of 6% is good. You would definitely want to contribute at least 5% to take advantage of the \"\"Free\"\" money. Loan provision could mean that loans from 401k are allowed. I did some research and found that not all company 401ks allow for you to take a loan out of your 401k. Typically this is bad practice since you are robbing your 401k of it's major advantage - tax free compound interest. Source\"",
"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": "4f4f98562b7c49dae14902f85ba0a423",
"text": "I think better advice would be always max out your 401K at least to the level that the company provides a match. For example, my company will match 50% up to 10% of your salary. Good luck finding another investment with a guaranteed immediate 50% return. Beyond the company match, it is probably good advice to put as much in the 401K as you can afford if you aren't disciplined enough to invest that money on your own. Otherwise it depends on a number of factors as to whether it is better to invest on your own or in the company plan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "20ddf4f306f99576150c1324d2593419",
"text": "If they're not matching, and their profit-sharing has nothing to do with how much you invest, then I'd say don't bother with the company 401k at all. If you need to at least have an account open to get the profit sharing, then contribute the bare minimum. Having your retirement account through your company forces you to follow their standards, choose from their funds, use their broker, etc. It also means that when you leave the company, you either have to move your money anyway, or else have an account through a company you don't work for, which I wouldn't feel all that comfortable doing anyway. If you open a retirement account through your bank or a private financial planner, then it's yours, and you can contribute what you want, when you want, and buy the securities that you want. Your account executive is there to service you, not your company.",
"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": "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": "d9c9611ed64b343dabdd3cfb8db0ad91",
"text": "There are a couple of cases where I'd argue in favor of the 401k: Employer matching - If the employer matches your contributions, then it makes sense to get these additional investments which if you are in a low bracket may exist as highly-compensated employees may want those in the lower brackets to contribute as much as they can. Investment options - If the employer has enough assets in the plan, there could be access to institutional versions of those funds. For example, compare Vanguard Institutional Index Instl Pl (VIIIX) with Vanguard 500 Index Inv (VFINX), where the expense ratio in the former is just .02% while the latter is .17%. Granted this is a minor difference in expenses, there is something to be said for how much a .15% drag year over year could add up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b109a70decdde42f25cf90204e3864d",
"text": "Does the 401(k) get any match? Whatever you do, don't lose the match. Without more detail, it's tough. Will you lose more sleep for the debt rising, or for the retire account not? It seems your debt is well managed, a year to zero? A student loan wouldn't scare me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ace9946466b87271df2a7f72ae6ec40",
"text": "Nope, take the match. I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments. But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can. If you save for retirement in the process, all the better.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a407b9ca8e3a270d4914338e474147df",
"text": "A 50% company match on your 401(k) is a huge amount of free money. You'd have to absolutely crush the professional money managers to justify turning it down. If you can do that, you should quit your job and do it full-time.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c3ab09d011e509f42c1f017e49a1e06c
|
Most common types of financial scams an individual investor should beware of?
|
[
{
"docid": "d70b75c413a0cb0e84d3edffcee85ddc",
"text": "\"Affinity fraud. You see, Madoff really didn't have to sell himself, people recommended him to their friends. In a similar way, it's easy once a scammer reels in one sucker to keep him on the hook long enough to get 10 friends to invest as well. I've written about Mortgage Acceleration scams, and the common thread is that they are first sold to friends, relatives, neighbors. People tell their fellow church goer about it and pretty soon people's belief just takes over as they want it to work. Edit - the scam I referenced above was the \"\"Money Merge Account\"\" and its reincarnated \"\"Wealth Unlimited.\"\" It claimed to use sophisticated software to enable one to pay their mortgage in less than half the time while not changing their budget. The sellers of the product weren't able to explain how it was supposed to work, since it was nonsense anyway. You were supposed to be able to borrow against a HELOC at a rate higher than your mortgage, yet come out ahead, enough to cut the time in half or less. The link I posted above leads to a spreadsheet I wrote in a weekend, which was better at the math than their software and free. It also linked to 66 pages of accumulated writing I did over a number of months starting in 2008. In the end, I never saw any prosecution over this scam, I suppose people were too embarrassed once they realized they wasted $3500. How can I get scammed buying S&P ETFs through Schwab? Easy, I can't.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4450ca2120b86f8877849104b8b47c8b",
"text": "\"If an offer \"\"is only valid right now\"\" and \"\"if you don't act immediately, it will expire\"\" that is almost always a scam.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b86e24022f172c2b6a6d0cd4b4287f16",
"text": "In the case of an investment strategy, if you don't retain custodianship over your funds, or at least determine who is the custodian, then walk away. You should be able to get accurate account statements from a trustworthy third party at all times.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "75467dd3e6862529f6534b9ab8a13fdd",
"text": "If anyone offers you guaranteed better than average returns, run. They are either lying to you or to themselves. (Claiming that they will try to beat the market is more credible, but that becomes a matter of whether there is any reason to believe that they'll succeed.) If anyone sends you an unsolicited stock tip, run. They wouldn't be doing so if it wasn't an attempt to manipulate you or the market or both. Most likely its a pump-and-dump attempt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63b921517ad5513d18082e989ad94171",
"text": "\"Investing in a business can be daunting and risky, so it is not for everyone. The most common pitfalls are mentioned here: Beyond that: It all sounds a bit like \"\"Don't trust anyone\"\" and sadly, this is true when there's a lot of money involved. So be prepared and do your homework, this sometimes will save you more money than you gain with your investments :) Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d58edbe1b8cec9415cb072790255878d",
"text": "Anything where the initial step of someone trying to get you into anything financial is to send you an e-mail. There are valid situations in which e-mails may be used to introduce you to a financial product or offer, such as if you have signed up for an electronic newsletter that includes such information. But in that particular case, the e-mail isn't the first step; rather, whatever caused you to sign up for the newsletter was. Even in a valid, legitimate scenario, you should obviously still perform due diligence and research the offer before committing any of your money. But the odds that someone is contacting you out of the blue via e-mail with a legitimate financial offer are tiny. The odds that a lawyer, a banker or someone similar in a remote country would initially contact you via e-mail are yet smaller; I'd call those odds infinitesimal. Non-zero, but unlikely enough that it is probably more likely that you would win the grand prize in the state lottery four times in a row. Keep in mind that responding in any way to spam e-mails will simply confirm to the sender that your e-mail address is valid and is being read. That is likely to cause you to receive more spam, not less, no matter the content of your response. Hence, it is better to flag the e-mail as spam or junk if your e-mail provider offers that feature, or just delete it if they don't. The same general principles as above also apply to social media messaging and similar venues, but the exact details are highly likely to differ somewhat.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3cb5752c88387ee2f3b89b678d01d94",
"text": "Cosigning on a loan. More broadly any exchange of value between family members or friends. Despite good intentions, these often go awry.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "226ce7d892c6c571a2662e8febd50f3d",
"text": "If some one ever offers High returns and low risk they are either extremely stupid or scamming you. If they did find a high return low risk investment a smart person would buy it then repackage it as a low return low risk investment and then sell it to you. People would still buy and they would make a ton. Either they are lying (scam) or a fool(about as bad)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e140d380056159ca9372631f6b481ed7",
"text": "Pretty much any financial transaction where they start by calling you on the phone is a scam. They aren't doing it for your benefit and the caller is on commission.",
"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": "ddf5fd3f79c3328ebe63da7b040a6570",
"text": "Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8d5564a970929110c227022086015bc",
"text": "Is there any truth to this, or is this another niche scam that's been brewing the last few years? While it may not be an outright scam, such schemes do tend to be on borderline of scams. Technically most of what is being said claimed can be true, however in reality such windfall gains never happen to the investors. Whatever gains are there will be cornered by the growers, trades, other entities in supply chain leaving very little to the investors. It is best to stay away from such investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6e7a6a6cd8d34129e8d86c385ff0517",
"text": "GIC perhaps? These would be quite similar to Certificates of Deposit where one is agreeing to lock up their money for a term and be paid a percentage for doing so. There are various kinds as some may be linked to market returns in some cases and others are just simple interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b93e0783a91335c0418e313471690db",
"text": "\"Mostly ditto to @grade'eh'bacon, but let me add a couple of comments: Before I did anything, I'd find out more about what's going on. Anytime someone tells me that there's a problem with \"\"security codes or something\"\", I get cautious. Think about what the possibilities are here. Your relative is being scammed. In that case, helping him to transfer his money to the scammer is not the kind of help you really want to give. Despite your firm belief in your relative's integrity, he may have been seduced by the dark side. If he's doing something illegal, I'd be very careful about getting involved. My friends and relatives don't ask me to commit crimes for them, especially not in a way that leaves me holding the bag if things go wrong. Assuming that what is going on here is all legal and ethical, still there is the possibility that you could be making yourself liable for taxes, fees, whatever. At the very least I'd want to know what those are up front. As @Grade'eh'bacon, if he really has a problem with a lost password or expired account, by all means help him fix that problem. But become someone else's financial intermediary has many possible pitfalls.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "138650c4890cb9a76d2737a5d6ab1288",
"text": "\"I will disagree with some of the other answers here. In my view, the most important dimension of the situation is not your friend's potential loss but the potential losses of the people he may convince by using his position as youth group leader, etc., to draw more them into the scam. Exactly how to handle this depends on many factors that aren't mentioned in your question (and probably rightly so, as this aspect of the situation moves beyond personal finance). For instance, if your friend is a \"\"pillar of the community\"\" who is widely trusted, and you are not, there may be little you can do, since people will believe him and not you. If you have some influence over the groups he is trying to recruit, you can attempt to provide a counterweight to his recruitment activities. Again, how to do this depends on other factors, such as how he is recruiting them. If he is just privately contacting individuals and inviting them to these meetings, you may have to just keep your eyes peeled for anyone who seems tempted and try to dissuade them before they suffer the \"\"brainwashing\"\". If he actually tries to do some sort of public recruitment (e.g., holding a meeting himself), you could try to inject doubt by, e.g., attending and asking probing questions to expose the dangers. If you think the danger is widespread, you could consider taking some more public action, like writing a column in a local paper about this organization. Of course, another major factor is how much you think people stand to lose by this. However, in your question you indicated that your friend has invested \"\"multiple month or years of income\"\". If he intends to pressure others to invest similar amounts, this sounds to me like enough danger to warrant some preventive action. Few people can afford to lose months or years of income, and sadly those most vulnerable to a scammer's siren song are often those who can least afford it. It doesn't sound like a situation where you'd have to devote your life to the cause of stopping it, but if I knew that dozens of people in my community stood to lose years of income, I'd want to make at least a small effort to stop them, rather than just keep my mouth shut. In doing this, you may lose your friendship. However, you stated that your goal is to resolve the situation in a way that is \"\"best with lowest loss of money for everybody\"\". If you really take this utilitarian view, it is likely that you may have to give up on the friendship to prevent other people from losing more money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe0594e196adef4e582cb8dc2d250db5",
"text": "\"They're not at all the same. A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment method that pays off early investors with deposits from later ones. Fractional reserve banking is the practice of keeping only a fraction of a bank's demand deposits on reserve, while lending out the rest. The reserve requirement is how central banks limit the amount of money that can float around in commercial banks. In the latter case, there is no \"\"later investor\"\" somewhere down near the bottom of a money food chain. Every dollar, regardless of whether it was created fresh from one of the federal reserve banks or created via several chained loans, is worth the same. If the dollars depreciate for whatever reason, they do so for everyone. Now, if you want a good example of a Ponzi scheme that is actually legal, look at Social Security. Edit: A \"\"debt-based society\"\" is separate from fractional-reserve banking. If the Fed creates $1,000,000, the total amount of money that can float around is still capped based on whatever the reserve requirement is. (For a 10% reserve requirement, it's something like $10,000,000.) We have unsustainable debt increases because of lack of self-control on the part of our leaders. The fractional-reserve process helps it along, but it's not the culprit. It's an enabler.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cb9b1c0db7e81406028ca63aa929817",
"text": "If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2981c6213a53646f8d4185fd4cd78b66",
"text": "A pattern of high level people buying or selling is a sign, positive or negative. An individual, not so much. He can be selling to diversify, trying to keep his investments from being all in the company. He can be selling to pay his large bills. Same reasons any of us might be selling an investment to have cash to use.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c95b01fcfd47ce1346fbba3a8e90cf64",
"text": "\"Careful with the \"\"stock stolen from your account\"\" thing. SIPC protects investors against broker/dealer insolvency. Don't think they provide protection against theft.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfab0ae02e21c2f28edb96c96f33fb60",
"text": "Yep! And /u/msattam, if you're just getting started with learning this stuff... > So the company, acting in the investors' best interest... ... while u/S4ndals is correct here in an academic sense, to expand on his point, you'll soon find the mileage to vary quite a bit on this issue in the real world. The vast majority of companies rarely act in the investors' best interest as a whole. It's uhhh, it's complicated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7164feb9ee4f3426bd83df83e9784f9",
"text": "I believe the only thing you haven't mentioned to him is the possibility that his activity is criminally fraudulent. I would sit him down, and say something substantially similar to the following: We've talked about your investment before, and I know you believe it's fine. I just want to make sure you understand that this is very likely fraudulent activity. I know you believe in it, but you've said you don't understand how or why it works. The problem with that is that if it is a fraud you can't protect yourself from criminal prosecution because you didn't understand what you were doing. The prosecutor will ask you if you asked others to give you or the organization money, and then they will convict you based on trying to defraud others. It doesn't matter whether you did it on purpose, or just because you believed the people you are investing in. So I very strongly advise you to understand exactly what the system is, and how it works, and then make sure with a lawyer that it's legal. If it is, then hey, you've learned something valuable. But if it's not, then you will save yourself a whole lot of trouble and anguish down the road if you step away before someone you attract to the investment decides to talk to their accountant or lawyer. A civil lawsuit may be bad, but if you're criminally prosecuted it will be so much worse. Now that I've said my piece, I won't talk to you about it anymore or bother you about it. I wish you luck, and hope that things work out fine. I wouldn't talk to the police or suggest that I'd do anything of that nature, without proof then there's no real way to start an investigation anyway, and unfortunately scams like this are incredibly hard to investigate, so the police often spend little to no time on them without a high level insider giving up evidence and associates. Chances are good nothing would happen to your friend - one day the organization will disappear and he won't recover any more money - but there's a distinct possibility that when that happens, the people below him will come for him, and he won't be able to look further up the chain for help. Perhaps the threat of illegal activity will be enough to prevent him from defrauding others, but if not I think at least you can let it go, and know that you've done everything for him that might work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ae84dbd0c02ad1dcfe27cacc2d54e658",
"text": "Taking all your assumptions: With Roth, you take $6112 from work, (let's call you tax rate 10%) pay $612 in taxes, and contribute $5500 (the max if you are younger than 50). This $5500 will grow to $21,283 in 20 years at 7% annual growth ($5500*(1.07^20)), and you will pay no additional taxes on it. With the traditional IRA, you take $6112 from work, pay $612 in taxes, and contribute $5500. You will receive a tax deduction at tax time of $612 for the contribution. This money will also grow to $21,283. This will be taxed at your ordinary income rate (which we're calling 10%), costing you $2123 at the time of withdrawal. You will have $19,155 left over. EDIT: If you invest your tax savings from every contribution to the Traditional IRA, then the numbers wash out. Perhaps a pivotal question is whether you believe you will have greater taxable earnings from your investments in retirement than you have in taxable earnings today -- affecting the rate at which you are taxed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a55fabf6e687d84b22721d68d42c5daf",
"text": "You might want to consider how much effort mitigating this risk is worth. For example, having homeowner's insurance and sufficient documentation of your valuables is probably enough to satisfy your fears if they are based on simply losing your property. In the end is there really any benefit in living like you don't have money in an effort to keep people stealing it from you? That said, One piece of good advice I have heard for how to avoid encouraging robbers is to avoid putting boxes for expensive items (e.g. electronics) out by the trash until the morning they pick it up. No need to advertise that you just bought a super expensive home-theater system.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2a8f216f02fac613f0e259043fd71a03
|
Which student loans to pay off first: Stafford or private?
|
[
{
"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": "570ac0090e1be889f6f2c7fedd9e6ef7",
"text": "Without knowledge of the special provisions of your loan contract, the one with the highest interest rate should be paid first. Or, if one's fixed payment is much larger than the other, and it is a burden, then it should be paid first, but refinancing may be an option. Socially speaking and possibly even economically since it could affect your reputation, it is probably best to either refinance the cosigned loan or pay that off as rapidly as possible. Economically speaking, I would recommend no prepayment since the asset that is leveraged is your mind which will last many decades, probably exceeding the term of the loan, but some caveats must be handled first: Many would disagree, but I finance the way I play poker: tight-aggressive.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce0b8223dc2c0a33c6a2dd1dd190b9b2",
"text": "Pay off your highest-interest debt first: credit card, car, maybe even mortgage. Pay minimums on all else. Student loans are typically low interest, so pay off anything else first, but double-check your rate of course. Even if you have no other debt, you may still want to hang on to your savings instead of paying down your student loans if getting rid of your savings causes you to accrue debt. For example, if you have a low income and no savings, you may accrue credit card debt (high interest). Or you may want to buy a car with cash instead of getting a loan. Even if this is not an issue, consider what you can do with your savings that others who lack them cannot do. You can put it into mutual funds, which may offer higher rate of return (albeit with risk) than your student loan interest. Or you may pay a down payment on a home. The very low interest rates of student loans are, to a person with savings, essentially a source of cheap money that doesn't need to be justified to a bank. You can use it as seed money to start a business, as funds for travel, for living expenses while in the Peace Corps, or whatever else. But if you pay down that principal, you bind yourself. In short, pay down your student loans when there is no better use for the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b197f205c4459bb22baf277787cb264",
"text": "I work for a private equity firm and recently graduated with a Master's of Finance from a top 20 B School. With that being said, I would not recommend the Master's as a path to PE or CF. You would be better suited to invest in a MBA from a target school. IB is very tough to get into with a MFin depending on the part/product of the bank you are targeting. Happy to answer more specific questions.",
"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": "690baaae183a17282f2f9bf2df37ed7a",
"text": "If you're not worried about making the car loan payments, why would you want to pay off a loan that is not charging you any interest? Pay off the interest bearing student loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adc62f6f0972b5dc3eb86197c5981b47",
"text": "I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money. If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money. But you can split it up a bit. Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo. Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan. What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high. Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0662076b1674fa6b76dfec12a25d62e",
"text": "\"Which option will save you the most money in the long run? That is tough. Assuming you stay healthy, don't lose your job, don't experience a pay cut or any major emergency that drains your savings, then applying the $6000 to the higher interest loan will save you more money in the long run. However, the difference in savings is a few hundred dollars. Not much really. So, in this case, I'd put the $6k towards the smaller loan. Why? Because then you'd pay it off faster. Once that's done, you open up your cash flow by the minimum monthly payment you would have had on that loan. Assuming they both have the same or similar number of months left, by paying the smaller loan off sooner, you'd open up $X month, where $X is your minimum monthly payment. This could be useful to you if you want to take on some other debt (like buying a house) because it lowers your debt to income ratio. If you put that money towards the higher loan, your DTI won't change until the normal time you would have paid off the smaller loan. Even if you are not looking to purchase anything that requires you to have a lower DTI, paying the smaller loan off sooner increases your cash flow sooner (because your monthly payment on the higher loan doesn't change just because you lowered the balance by $6k). So you'd be more robust to emergencies if your current income doesn't allow for much savings. A major emergency could wipe out all savings from paying down the bigger balance. So, I'd suggest: Edit: TripeHound asked a question, pretty much requesting more details for why I was biased towards paying off the smaller loan first. What follows is my response, with a bit of reorganization: Typically, people asking these questions don't have so much wealth that \"\"which loan to pay first?\"\" is an academic question. They need to make smart financial decisions. While paying the highest interest loan saves the most money in interest - that only occurs under the assumption that nothing bad will ever happen to you until the loans are paid off. In reality, other things happen. Tires blow out, children get sick, you get laid off and so the \"\"best\"\" thing to do is the one that maximizes your long term financial health, even if it comes at the expense of a few $k more interest. Each loan has a minimum monthly payment. Let's assume, barring any windfalls of additional cash, you will just make the minimum payments each month towards a loan. If you pay off the smaller loan first, that increases your available monthly cash flow. At that point, you can put extra towards the other loan. However, if an emergency should come up, or you need to save for a vacation, you can do that, without negatively impacting the second loan, because you'd just drop back to its minimum payment. Putting the money towards the higher balance loan would mean it takes you longer to reach this point as the time to reach payoff on the first loan will not change ($6k only reduces the $25.6k loan to $19.6k) so you never gain the flexibility of additional cash flow until the time you would have paid off the $13.5k originally. I'd rather have a few hundred dollars each month that I can choose to use to make additional loan payments, eat out, pay for car repairs, pay for emergencies than be forced to dip into credit or worse, pay day loans, should an emergency happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6c3643ca3542cc5de3c2eccae8c6fa4",
"text": "I would not advise this for two reasons: Your point that the investment could be lower at the end of the 3 years is a concern, although with a safe investment, it is less so, but this reduces the potential gain. While your interest is not gaining interest, your interest charged is based on the principal. If you pay off the loans, you reduce the principal and therefore you pay less interest in the long run, even if the interest isn't capitalized. All that this means is that you are basically being charged simple interest as opposed to compounding interest, but reducing the principal helps in either case. You are mistaken about the benefits of the tax deduction. You reduce your tax bill by the marginal rate times the student loan interest you paid for the year. So if you are in the 15% tax bracket and paid $100 in interest, you save $15. This is not a reason to keep the loans (because you have to pay $100 to get $15), but you are mistaken on the benefit, it has nothing to do with shifting the tax brackets. Also, speaking of taxes, don't forget that you pay taxes on investment gains.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39e2e45e8bcc7adf720d1c39d4c7aa85",
"text": "\"Is a student loan a type of loan or just a generic name used to refer to a loan for someone who is going back to school? A student loan from the federal government is a specific type of loan used for education purposes (i.e. attending college). They have guidelines associated with them that are very flexible as compared to a student loan from a private bank. If a student loan is a different type of loan, does it only cover the costs of going to the school? Every student at a university has a \"\"budget\"\" or the \"\"cost of attendance\"\". That includes direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are ones billed directly to you (i.e. tuition, room and board - should you choose to live on campus, and associated fees). Indirect costs are such things like books, travel expenses (if you live out of state), and personal things. Direct costs are controlled by the school. Indirect costs are estimated. The school will usually conduct market research to determine the costs for indirect items. Some students go above that, and some go below. For example, transportation is an indirect cost. A school could set that at $500. There are students who will be above that, and some below that. If you choose not to live on campus, then rent and food will become an indirect cost. Student loans can cover up to 100% of your budget (direct and indirect added together). If your total budget is $60,000 (tuition, room and board, transportation, books, supplies, etc.) Then you are able to borrow up to that amount ($60,000). However, because your budget is both direct and indirect costs, you will only be billed for your direct costs (tuition, etc.). So if your direct costs equal $50,000 and your student loan was certified for $60,000, then you will get that $10,000 back in the form of a refund from the school. That does not mean you don't have to pay it back - you still do. But that money is meant for indirect costs (i.e. books, rent - if you're not staying on campus, etc.). If your school is on semesters vs quarters, then that amount is divided between the terms. Summer term is not factored in, that's another process. Also with student loans, there are origination costs - the money associated with processing a loan. A good rule of thumb is to never borrow more than you need. Source: I used to work in financial aid at my college.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac229dd060b9828d15a3f414b30a5cff",
"text": "\"If I had to guess (since you provided little information about your loan repayment), I'd guess that you're on the \"\"Extended\"\" repayment plan for your $72k loan, and the \"\"Standard\"\" plan for your $30k loan. In general, there are 4 main kinds of student loan repayment plans This holds true for federal loans (Direct/Stafford/PLUS). Private loans may not have all of these options, or they may have more. Running your numbers, I get 300 payments of $500/mo at 6.8% interest for a $72,000 loan, and 120 payments of $345/mo at 6.8% interest for a $30,000 loan. Now, to address your issue of interest vs principal, you should notice that each month you pay, the interest payment is slightly lower, and the principal slightly higher. And if you make bi-weekly payments, you'll see that change a LITTLE bit more quickly (slightly smaller balance accruing interest for 14 days of the month) and you'll also pay slightly less over time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b8438a1912d01899fd5ec658274cbabe",
"text": "First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b49c1e70130f64a08cadd1ff68d20b93",
"text": "So one approach would be purely mathematical: look at whichever has the higher interest rate and pay it first. Another approach is to ignore the math (since the interest savings difference between a mortgage and student loan is likely small anyways) and think about what your goals are. Do you like having a student loan payment? Would you prefer to get rid of it as quickly as possible? How would it feel to cut the balance in HALF in one shot? If it were me, I would pay the student loan as fast as possible. Student loans are not cancellable or bankruptable, and once you get it paid off you can put that payment amount toward your house to get it paid off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b7e69c4462182ca6b9aaf0ccf110ab1",
"text": "First, let me fill in the gaps on your situation, based on the numbers you've given so far. I estimate that your student loan balance (principal) is $21,600. With the variable rate loan option that you've presented, the maximum interest rate you could be charged would be 11.5%, which would bring your monthly payment up to that $382 number you gave in the comments. Your thoughts are correct about the advantage to paying this loan off sooner. If you are planning on paying off this loan sooner, the interest rate on the variable rate loan has less opportunity to climb. One thing to be cautious of with the comparison, though: The $1200 difference between the two options is only valid if your rate does not increase. If the rate does increase, of course, the difference would be less, or it could even go the other way. So keep in mind that the $1200 savings is only a theoretical maximum; you won't actually see that much savings with the variable rate option. Before making a decision, you need to find out more about the terms of this variable rate loan: How often can your rate go up? What is the loan rate based on? I'm not as familiar with student loan variable rate loans, but there are other variable rate loans I am familiar with: With a typical adjustable rate home mortgage, the rate is locked for a certain number of years (perhaps 5 years). After that, the bank might be allowed to raise the rate once every period of months (perhaps once every year). There will be a limit to how much the rate can rise on each increase (perhaps 1.0%), and there will be a maximum rate that could be charged over the life of the loan (perhaps 12%). The interest rate on your mortgage can adjust up, inside of those parameters. (The actual formula used to adjust will be found in the fine print of your mortgage contract.) However, the bank knows that if they let your rate get too high above the current market rates, you will refinance to a different bank. So the mortgage is typically structured so that it will raise your rate somewhat, but it won't usually get too far above the market rate. If you knew ahead of time that you would have the house paid off in 5 years, or that you would be selling the house before the 5 years is over, you could confidently take the adjustable rate mortgage. Credit cards, on the other hand, also typically have variable rates. These rates can change every month, but they are usually calculated on some formula determined ahead of time. For example, on my credit card, the interest rate is the published Prime Rate plus 13.65%. On my last statement, it said the rate was 17.15%. (Of course, because I pay my balance in full each month, I don't pay any interest. The rate could go up to 50%, for all I care.) As I said, I don't know what determines the rate on your variable rate student loan option, and I don't know what the limits are. If it climbs up to 11.5%, that is obviously ridiculously high. I recommend that you try to pay off this student loan as soon as you possibly can; however, if you are not planning on paying off this student loan early, you need to try to determine how likely the rate is to climb if you want to pick the variable rate option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f4660e81b6cac0d44cedec2044272b9",
"text": "My recommendation would be to pay off your student loan debt as soon as possible. You mention that the difference between your student loan and the historical, long-term return on the stock market is one-half percent. The problem is, the 7% return that you are counting on from the stock market is not guaranteed. You might get 7% over the next few years, but you also might do much worse. The 6.4% interest that you will save by aggressively paying off your debt is guaranteed. You are concerned about the opportunity cost of paying your debt early. However, this cost is only temporary. By drawing out your debt payments, you have a long-term opportunity cost. By this, I mean that 4 years from now, you could still have 6 years of debt payments hanging over your head, or you could be debt free with all of your income available to save, spend, or invest as you see fit. In my opinion, prolonging debt just to try to come out 0.5% ahead is not worth the hassle or risk.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0b4d0abf230c210ffabb1e20426bf84",
"text": "Two different questions: Is it better to be in debt or to pay off the debt? And: Is it better to have student debt than other debt? Any debt needs to be paid off eventually, and any debt makes you less flexible. So if you have the choice between spending/wasting your money and paying off debt, I would recommend paying off the debt. The other question is whether having student debt is better than having other debt. You need to look at the terms of your student debt. Pay off the debt with the worst conditions first. Loan sharks (in Britain: pay-day loans) must be paid first. Credit cards debt must go next. Then general loans. Depending on your situation, you may want some savings as well. In case you lose your job, for example. So if you have $8,000 saved and an $8,000 student loan, you might consider waiting a bit before you pay back the loan. No job + $8,000 student loan + $8,000 in the bank is better than no job + no debt + no money in the bank.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2b4b76e678919249bca097876a85922",
"text": "Like all other loan-vs-savings questions, it depends on the terms of the loan. If you have a choice, the usual answer is to pay off the loan with the worst terms (which usually means the highest interest rate) first, and only start with savings when you've paid off all the high-interest loans entirely. If your student loan is on US terms, then pay it off as soon as you can, unless you have commercial debt (credit-card or unsecured personal loan), which you should pay off first, or unless you have or are realistically likely to get eligibility for a forgiveness program. But it does depends on the terms of the debt, which in turn depend on the country you studied in; on UK terms it's a very bad idea to pay off a student loan any faster than you have to. Interest is restricted to the rate of inflation, so good investments probably beat the interest rate of the student loan; the required repayments vary with your income, so savings are more useful than debt repayment if you encounter income difficulties (e.g unemployment) in the future, and finally the debt is automatically forgiven after 30 years, so you may never have to pay it all back anyway - so why pay it off voluntarily if it would get forgiven eventually anyway?",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
74c8357f7f085f5688061aecf959396e
|
Impact of RMD on credit worthiness
|
[
{
"docid": "3d99cb5ce8eb6305527348569333eae4",
"text": "I feel like this has nothing to do with income, and as such RMDs will not really help or harm you. After a person passes, credit card companies are unlikely to collect any outstanding balance. Debts cannot be inherited, however, assets can be made to stand for debts. Many assets pass to heirs without the probate process and in some cases all of them pass this way. This leaves creditors with nothing and having to write off the balance. Even if assets do pass through probate heirs may dispute the creditors. In that case credit card balances may not be high enough justify hiring a lawyer to fight for payment; or, if they do the judge may be unsympathetic and offer nothing or pennies on the dollar. The bottom line is that they probably see you, or your demographic, as a poor credit risk and reduced their exposure by lowering your limit. While that is not what they told you, they probably have to carefully structure what they say to avoid any discrimination claims.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3933fbac5eaa1df4c0b1e86f9e77bde",
"text": "\"My understanding is that credit card companies are allowed to accept retirement income as part of the income that would qualify you for credit. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau issued a final rule amendment to Regulation Z (the regulations around Truth in Lending Act) in 2013 in response to some of the tightening of credit that resulted from the Credit CARD Act of 2009. The final rule allows for credit issuers to \"\"consider income and assets to which such consumers have a reasonable expectation of access.\"\" (Page 1) On page 75, it outlines some examples: Other sources of income include interest or dividends, retirement benefits, public assistance, alimony, child support, and separate maintenance payments.... Current or reasonably expected income also includes income that is being deposited regularly into an account on which the consumer is an accountholder (e.g., an individual deposit account or joint account). Assets include, for example, savings accounts and investments. Fannie Mae explicitly mentions IRA distributions in its Documentation Requirements on mortgage applications. For them, they require that the income be \"\"expected to continue for at least three years after the date of the mortgage application.\"\" Lenders can reject or lower your credit limit for just about any reason that they want, but it seems appropriate for you to include your retirement distributions in your income for credit applications.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "916544523caa4119c9ec3208c501beaa",
"text": "The actual policy will vary based on the specific bank. But, if I were in your shoes I'd include RMDs in my stated income for credit card purposes.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "846896e5f9c9e12678aa7d4b49272755",
"text": "Credit scores have a huge financial impact on consumers, even though most people don’t know how they are calculated or which bad habits may be driving theirs down. Your credit score is a number on a scale of 300 to 900 that can affect all of your financial decisions, from shopping for groceries to applying for a mortgage. Read on to find out why a good credit rating is so important. 4 Things to Know About Your Credit Score Why it’s important. Throughout your life, you will probably rely on your credit to acquire the items that you want and need but can’t necessarily pay cash for. Each time you buy something on credit, merchants are taking a gamble on you; the bet is",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e90a2141c1b04e6f9843f3c6280dcf62",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ten-years-after-subprime-mortgage-crisis-us-credit-card-walden-siew) reduced by 84%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Things have come a really long way since the dark days of the credit crisis, and it&#039;s really flipped completely the other way where now it doesn&#039;t really take great credit to get a credit card. > MS: This is definitely a case of history repeating itself, but the thing is we don&#039;t know what the tip of the mountain is when it comes to credit card debt, because when credit card debt started to fall in 2008 in the credit crisis, credit card debt wasn&#039;t the central problem that sent us over the edge. > MS: We really have seen all levels, from folks with less than perfect credit to folks with 800 credit scores spending more, and that has been part of what&#039;s driven up America&#039;s credit card balances to these record levels. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6txd7q/ten_years_after_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis_a_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~191596 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*: **credit**^#1 **card**^#2 **debt**^#3 **really**^#4 **crisis**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "701a2ecf296c842e24ce8d798d2d9934",
"text": "There are two very small catches. You have just increased your available credit. In some cases when you want to make a loan, they will check your available credit against your creditworthiness (your income and credit history). In the short term with a greater credit limit, you may have more difficulty getting a large loan. On the other hand, your greater credit limit will make you seem more creditworthy (as you have been walking around with the ability to borrow a whole pile and demonstrated the ability to not go bankrupt). The other possible catch is that if something goes wrong and your credit line is maxed (maybe you have a psychotic episode; maybe you give your credit card and pin number to someone who buys a car on you), your liability is larger. If you can maintain spending discipline and don't need every ounce of credit head room right now, neither of these apply. In the medium to long term, a lower credit utilization and a higher total limit will make you more creditworthy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3fcbad362ce5138359e0b7103fc7650",
"text": "\"The comments section to Dilip's reply is overflowing. First - the OP (Graphth) is correct in that credit scoring has become a game. A series of data points that predicts default probability, but of course, offers little chance to explain why you applied for 3 loans (all refinancing to save money on home or rentals) got new credit cards (to get better rewards) and have your average time with accounts drop like a rock (well, I canceled the old cards). The data doesn't dig that deep. To discuss the \"\"Spend More With Plastic?\"\" phenomenon - I have no skin in the game, I don't sell credit card services. So if the answer is yes, you spend more with cards, I'll accept that. Here's my issue - The studies are all contrived. Give college students $10 cash and $10 gift cards and send them into the cafeteria. Cute, but it produces no meaningful data. I can tell you that when I give my 13yr old $20 cash, it gets spent very wisely. A $20 Starbucks card, and she's treating friends and family to lattes. No study needed, the result is immediate and obvious. Any study worth looking at would first separate the population into two groups, those who pay in full each month and those who carry a balance. Then these two groups would need to be subdivided to study their behavior if they went all cash. Not a simply survey, and not cheap to get a study of the number of people you need for meaningful data. I've read quotes where The David claimed that card users spend 10% more than cash users. While I accept that Graphth's concern is valid, that he may spend more with cards than cash, there is no study (that I can find) which correlates to a percentage result as all studies appear to be contrived with small amounts to spend. As far as playing the game goes - I can charge gas, my cable bill, and a few other things whose dollar amounts can't change regardless. (Unless you're convinced I'll gas up and go joy-riding) Last - I'd love to see any link in the comments to a meaningful study. Quotes where conclusions are stated but no data or methodology don't add much to the discussion. Edit - Do You Spend More with Cash or Credit? is an article by a fellow Personal Finance Blogger. His conclusion is subjective of course, but along the same path that I'm on with this analysis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a8b5d1cc34bebe4d47588994d14e37b",
"text": "Payment history is probably the most significant contributor to your credit score. Having a solid history of making, at least the minimum, payments on time will have a positive impact on your credit score. Whether or not this specific transaction means anything to that equation is up for debate. If you have no credit lines now and 0% for 18 months on a computer makes sense to you, then yes, making this purchase this way and paying on time will have a positive impact on your credit score. Paying interest doesn't help your credit score. Repay this computer before the 18 month period ends, then be sure to pay your balance in full every month thereafter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eeb983da9cfabadda4c0df8aeb8309d3",
"text": "I have heard that it is better for your credit score to pay them down over time. Will it make much of a difference? I have never heard that, however, the financial institutions (who are charging you an amount of interest which was at one time in the not so distant past classified and punishable in state criminal codes) really enjoy you thinking that way. You are clearly capable of doing the math yourself. While I don't know the exact numbers, I am totally confident that you will find in about 5 or 10 minutes (if that long) that eliminating debt of any kind in your life will pay an immediate return that beats the great majority of other investments in terms of risk/reward. After the immediate financial return, there is a quieter, subtler, and even greater long term benefit. Basic principle: Highest Rates First Perhaps this decision could be considered slightly less important than deciding not to smoke during your youth; but I would put it as a close second. You are already in a position where you can see the damage that your prior decisions (about financial debt) have produced. Run the clock back to the time in your life when you were debt free. Now, pay off that debt with the big check, and start from zero. Now, turn on your psychic powers and predict the same amount of time, in the future, with the same amount of money (don't even try to adjust for inflation; just use flat dollars) WITHOUT losing the money which you have given to the financial institutions during this previous part of your life. Do you now see why the financial institutions want you to think about slowly paying them off instead of waking up tomorrow without owing them anything ?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "255f77421bfb1ed51c87e966015ae910",
"text": "There were several areas where the mortgage and car loan have affected your credit. The mortgage had the following impacts, The car loan (purchased shortly after the house) had the following impacts, You did not mention your payment history, but since you had an 800 prior to the house purchase, we can assume that your payment history is current (nothing late). You did not mention your credit utilization, but you want to keep your utilization low (various experts suggest 10%, 20% and 30% as thresholds). The down payment on the house likely drained your available funds, and replacing the car may have also put stress on your funds. And when you buy a house, often there are additional expenses that further strain budgets. My guess is that your utilization percentage has increased. My suggestion would be to reduce your utilization ratio on your revolving accounts. And since you have plenty of credit lines, you might want to payoff the car. Your Chase card has a good age, which helps with age of credit, and though you will find experts that say you should only have 2-4 revolving accounts (credit cards), other experience shows that having accounts with age on them is a good thing. And having a larger number of accounts does not cause problems (unless you have higher utilization or you miss payments). You did not mention whether the Chase card has any fees or expenses, as that would be a reason to either negotiate with Chase to reduce or eliminate the fees, or to cancel the card. Have you checked your credit report for errors? You can get a free report from each of the three bureaus once per year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d14fb2c0a6b79e1e68d516dc32b2c6c",
"text": "I don't think that there is any good way a study can average this and bring a useful result: The core problem is that there are people that will spend more money than they should, if they become technically able to, and the credit card is just one of the tools they abuse for that (similar to re-financing with cash-outs, zero percent loans, etc.). On the other side, there are people who control and understand their spending, and again, the mechanism of payment is irrelevant for them. Studies measure some mix between the groups, and come up with irrelevant correlations that have no causality. If you think any tool or mechanics got you in financial trouble, think again: your spending habits and lack of understanding or care get you in financial trouble - nothing else. In a world where it is considered cool to 'don't understand math', it is no surprise that so many people can't control their finances.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26207da564229d6d7a74c1e63f6cb6c9",
"text": "I want to be a bit contrarian here. It may be true that to rebuild credit it helps to have credit, but it's not the most important thing. If your description of your wife's history is correct, the most important thing is to fix her tendency to 'spend out of control', especially on get-rich-quick schemes. She may well be on the way to fixing that, but in those circumstances every source of credit is a temptation to spend. Why put that temptation in her way? Whatever tiny postive effect having a credit card has on her credit score will be wiped out if in six months time she suddenly maxes out that card and can't pay it off. I don't want to play credit counsellor, and you should get some professional advice, but her credit score will improve by itself if she takes on no new debt, pays off what she has, and cuts up any credit cards she owns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d954b88e7b3291be19c70b3ed9b6e80c",
"text": "TL/DR Yes, The David popularized the Debt Snowball. The method of paying low balance first. It's purely psychological. The reward or sense of accomplishment is a motivator to keep pushing to the next card. There's also the good feeling of following one you believe to be wise. The David is very charismatic, and speaks in a no-nonsense my way or the highway voice. History is riddled with religious leaders who offer advice which is followed without question. The good feeling, in theory, leads to a greater success rate. And really, it's easier to follow a plan that comes at a cost than to follow one that your guru takes issue with. In the end, when I produce a spreadsheet showing the cost difference, say $1000 over a 3 year period, the response is that it's worth the $1000 to actually succeed. My sole purpose is to simply point out the cost difference between the two methods. $100? Go with the one that makes you feel good. $2000? Just think about it first. If it's not clear, my issue is less with the fact that the low balance method is inferior and more with its proponents wishing to obfuscate the fact that the high interest method is not only valid but has some savings built in. When a woman called into The David's radio show and said her friend recommended the high rate first method, he dismissed it, and told her that low balance was the only way to go. The rest of this answer is tangent to the real issue, answered above. The battle reminds me of how people brag about getting a tax refund. With all due respect to the Tax Software people, the goal should be minimizing one's tax bill. Getting a high refund means you misplanned all year, and lent Uncle Sam money at zero interest(1). And yet you feel good about getting $3000 back in April. (Disclosure - when my father in law passed away, I took over my mother in law's finances. Her IRA RMD, and taxes. First year, I converted some money to Roth, and we had a $100 tax bill. Frowny face on mom. Since then, I have Schwab hold too much federal tax, and we always get about $100 back. This makes her happy, and I'll ignore the 27 cents lost interest.) (1) - I need to acknowledge that there are cases where the taxpayer has had zero dollars withheld, yet receives a 'tax refund.' The earned income tax credit (EITC) produces a refundable benefit, i.e. a payment that's not conditional on tax due. Obviously, those who benefit from this are not whom I am talking about. Also, in response to a comment below, the opportunity cost is not the sub-1% rate the bank would have paid you on the money had you held on to it. It's the 18% card you should be paying off. That $3000 refund likely cost over $400 in the interest paid over the prior year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f6d340b7ba3e75ff4221b730548216e",
"text": "FTA > In late July, the San Francisco-based bank lowered the minimum credit score on these fixed-rate jumbo mortgages to 700 from 720, For comparison with the bubble years, mortgages were being issued to those with FICO scores under 620.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d7a2a240a86664d6f18364f20a1d5229",
"text": "Specific to the inquiries, from my Impact of Credit Inquiries article - 8 is at the high end pulling your score down until some time passes. As MB stated, long term expanding your credit will help, but short term, it's a bit of a hit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f7d7b47297fe882b41f5d99354d601a",
"text": "\"Credit Unions have long advocated their services based on the fact that they consider your \"\"character.\"\" Unfortunately, they are then at a loss to explain how they determine the value of your character, other than to say that you're buddies & play pool together so they'll give you a loan. Your Credit History / Score is as accurate a representation of your character in business dealings as can be meaningfully quantified. It tracks your ability to effectively use and manage debt, and your propensity to pay it back responsibly or default on obligations. While it isn't perfect, it is certainly one of the best means currently available for determining someone's trustworthiness when it comes to financial matters.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0e82dc8fadcfa9887733a3d37adfb011",
"text": "Incredible article, tons of data. Thank you! It does answer the above posters question if you're willing to read through. It provides data with and without 'revolving debt'. Side note; interesting to see how age and income trend. Debt increasing during the family-middle aged years, and during the peak income earning years. I'd say you want these credit card debt lower overall and on average; but with the distribution it may be sustainable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7b33aeffa1e7947273e1224efc77a8",
"text": "This is a great response, thanks. I appreciate Dale Carnegie, Sun Tzu etc, but after reading them I felt they didn't offer anything really specific towards running a business. I've just ordered the personal MBA after reading a bit more on it so thanks for that too. Prince2 methodology looks pretty in depth so that's going on the the 'later' pile for now!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
dc5af631cee8c640b3ae597957ae95f7
|
Car Loan upside down--refinance before selling?
|
[
{
"docid": "4441b69379c10474e71ccbef0a200708",
"text": "Carmax will be interested in setting a price that allows them to make money on the reselling of the vehicle. They won't offer you more than that. The determination of the value compared to the BlueBook value is based on condition and miles. The refinancing of the auto loan could lower your monthly payment, but may not save you any money in the short term. The new lender will also want an evaluation of the vehicle, and if it is less than the payoff amount of the current loan they will ask you to make a lump sum payment. This is addition to the cost of getting the new loan setup. If you can pay the delta between the value of the car and loan then do so, when you sell the car. Don't refinance unless you plan on keeping the car for many months, or you are just adding paperwork to the transaction.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d8e2e72905068e2d95e805edefdab87",
"text": "\"Having just gone through selling a car, I can tell you that CarMax will most likely not be the best solution. I recently sold my '09 Pontiac Vibe which had a KBB and Edmonds value (private party sale) of around $6k. Trade-in value was around $4,800. I took it to the local CarMax for a quote, and they came back with $3,500. Refinancing is tricky. Banks have a set limit on how old a car they will finance. Many won't even offer financing if the vehicle has over 100k miles. We looked at refinancing our other car, and even getting the APR down over a point we would only have saved $15/mo or so. Banks typically offer much higher interest rates for used non-dealership cars and refinancing than they do for new cars, or even used cars purchased from a dealership. Assuming you have 2-3 years left on your loan, I don't think that refinancing would save you enough to be worth considering. CarMax sells cars in 1 of 2 ways. They are also up front with you about the process. They do not reference KBB or Edmonds or any other valuation tool other than their own internal system. They either take the car, spruce it up a bit, then resell it on their lot, or they sell it at auction. If they determine your car will be sold at auction, then they will offer you a rock bottom price. The determining factors that come into play include age of the car, mileage, and of course overall condition. If you Mini is still in good shape and doesn't have a lot of miles, then they may try to resell it on their lot, for which they could offer you closer to personal-sale price than trade-in. How many 2007's are for sale in your area? How much are they selling for? I did sell them a truck back in 2005 and received $200 more than KBB valued it for, but it was in great shape, only a couple of years old, relatively low mileage, and it was in high demand. God bless the South and their love for trucks! I ended up selling my Pontiac to another local car dealership. They offered me $5,300 (after negotiating, leaving the dealership, then negotiating more over the phone). It took me a day and a half and really very little effort. I have several friends that have gone through the same thing with selling cars, and all have had similar luck going to other dealerships, where prices can be negotiated, rather than CarMax. CarMax has no incentive to \"\"settle\"\" or forgive your loan. If you really want to pay it off, save up what you believe the difference will be, then shop your car around the local dealerships and get prices for your Mini. Remember that dealers have to turn a profit, so be reasonable with your negotiation. If you can find comparable vehicles in your area listed for $X,000 then knock $1,500 off that price and tell the dealerships that's what you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff0b15f9cbb3b8000b376045467a9566",
"text": "As for refinancing: Many institutions charge up-front fees when doing any type of vehicle loan. Typically this is in the neighborhood of 1% the value of the loan, with a floor of $100 (although this may vary by lender). However, for the loan the be secured by the vehicle, the principle value must be less than the collateral value. In your case, this means there is a collateral shortfall of $4,000. When working with a traditional bank, you would have two options: pay the difference up front (reducing the principle value of the loan), or obtaining a separate loan for the difference. This separate loan would often have a higher interest rate unless you have some other form of collateral to secure it with. I doubt CarMax would do a separate loan. All that being said, if you plan on selling the vehicle within the next twelves months, don't bother refinancing. It won't be worth the hassle.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "14fbd60f61528b74f681f6033acfc003",
"text": "The risk besides the extra interest is that you might be upside down on the loan. Because the car loses value the moment you drive off the lot, the slower you pay it off the longer it takes to get the loan balance below the resale value. Of course if you have a significant down payment, the risk of being upside down is not as great. Even buying a used car doesn't help because if you try to sell it back to the dealer the next week they wont give you the full price you paid. Some people try and split the difference, get the longer term loan, but then pay it off as quickly as the shorter term loan. Yes the interest rate is higher but if you need to drop the payment back to the required level you can do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3d8fefc639c7cb5e3c2ba260f5dd1fd",
"text": "\"I'm going to ignore your numbers to avoid spending the time to understand them. I'm just going to go over the basic moving parts of trading an upside down car against another financed car because I think you're conflating price and value. I'm also going to ignore taxes, and fees, and depreciation. The car has an acquisition cost (price) then it has a value. You pay the price to obtain this thing, then in the future it is worth what someone else will pay you. When you finance a car you agree to your $10,000 price, then you call up Mr. Bank and agree to pay 10% per year for 5 years on that $10,000. Mr. Banker wires over $10,000 and you drive home in your car. Say in a year you want a different car. This new car has a price of $20,000, and wouldn't you know it they'll even buy your current car from you. They'll give you $7,000 to trade in your current car. Your current car has a value of $7,000. You've made 12 payments of $188.71. Of those payments about $460 was interest, you now owe about $8,195 to Mr. Banker. The new dealership needs to send payment to Mr. Banker to get the title for your current car. They'll send the $7,000 they agreed to pay for your car. Then they'll loan you the additional $1,195 ($8,195 owed on the car minus $7,000 trade in value). Your loan on the new car will be for $21,195, $20,000 for the new car and $1,195 for the amount you still owed on the old car after the dealership paid you $7,000 for your old car. It doesn't matter what your down-payment was on the old car, it doesn't matter what your payment was before, it doesn't matter what you bought your old car for. All that matters is how much you owe on it today and how much the buyer (the dealership) is willing to pay you for it. How much of this is \"\"loss\"\" is an extremely vague number to derive primarily because your utility of the car has a value. But it could be argued that the $1,195 added on to your new car loan to pay for the old car is lost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "adeb62f3873388115cae70ccf26f77c7",
"text": "Used car dealers will sometimes deliberately issue high-interest-rate subprime loans to folks who have poor credit. But taking that kind of risk on a mortgage, when you aren't also taking profit out of the sale, really isn't of interest to anyone who cares about making a profit. There might be a nonprofit our there which does so, but I don't know of one. Fix your credit before trying to borrow.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f95bc581a3d4e6fe834469a1a551bbe3",
"text": "\"It is a legitimate practice. The dealers do get the loan money \"\"up front\"\" because they're not holding the loan themselves; they promptly sell it to someone else or (more commonly) just act as salesmen for a lending institution and take their profit as commission or origination fees. The combined deal is often not a good choice for the consumer, though. Remember that the dealer's goal is to close a sale with maximum profit. If they're offering to drop the price $2k, they either didn't expect to actually get that price in the first place, or expect at least $2k of profit from the loan, or some combination of these. Standard advice is to negotiate price, loan, and trade-in separately. First get the dealer's best price on the car, compare it to other dealer and other cars, and walk away if you don't like their offer. Repeat for the loan, checking the dealer's offer against banks/credit unions available to you. If you have an older car to unload, get quotes for it and consider whether you might do better selling it yourself. ========= Standard unsolicited plug for Consumef Reports' \"\"car facts\"\" service, if you're buying a new car (which isn't usually the best option; late-model used is generally a better value). For a small fee, they can tell you what the dealer's real cost of a car is, after all the hidden incentives and rebates. That lets you negotiate directly on how much profit they need on this sale... and focuses their attention on the fact that the time they spend haggling with you is time they could be using to sell the next one. Simply walking into the dealer with this printout in your hand cuts out a lot of nonsense. The one time I bought new, I basically walked in and said \"\"It's the end of the model year. I'll give you $500 profit to take one of those off your hands before the new ones come in, if you've got one configured the way I want it.\"\" Closed the deal on the spot; the only concession I had to make was on color. It doesn't always work; some salesmen are idiots. In that case you walk away and try another dealer. (I am not affiliated in any way with CU or the automotive or lending industries, except as customer. And, yes, this touch keyboard is typo-prone.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1466443fbfb06e3d1f6080caa767b77e",
"text": "Some places banks/Credit Unions will allow you to refinance a auto loan. My credit Union only does this if the original loan was with another lender. They will send the money to the old lender, then give you a loan under the new terms. They are trying to get your business, not necessarily looking for a way make less money for themselves. You will have to see how much you will save. Which will be based on the delta of the length of the loan or the change in interest rate, or both. My Credit Union has a calculator to show you the numbers based on keeping the size of the payments the same, or keeping the number of payments the same. Make sure you understand any limitations regarding the refinance based on the age of the car, and if you are underwater.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5bd49da7dc83886ed33c5b5d84943b4",
"text": "\"I would actually disagree with MrChrister on this. You can afford yourself the car in this price range paid cash. I don't know how exactly you spend your income, but from my experience, in expensive California, saving $20K a year from $70K income with $800/mo rent is feasible. Having a loan on your credit report which is paid on time and in full will definitely help you rebuilding your credit. Your calculations re the costs of the loan are based on the assumption that you're going to keep the loan for the whole period. Don't do that. See #1 - you can repay this loan much quicker than the 3 years it should originally have been. 6 months of the loan which is then paid off will do marvels to your credit report and credit score. Yes, it is going to cost you some, but in your particular case I would argue that its worth it. You're an adult now, you need credit cards, you'll need a mortgage at some point, you need to rent a place to live - all these require a good credit report. Just waiting, as MrChrister suggests, will help, but much much slower. Having said that, a seller that \"\"cannot discuss the terms over the phone\"\" is most likely a dishonest person. Once you're there and in front of him it is harder for you to verify information, resist signing papers, and negotiating.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1add9a666c8b481d0ddcca7928f6e38c",
"text": "\"Were you just offered a car loan for 1.4%, or did you sign for a car loan for 1.4%? If you signed, it's too late. If you didn't sign: You should realise that your car loan isn't really 1.4%. Nobody will give you a car loan for less than a mortgage loan. What really happened is that you gave up your chance to get a rebate on the car purchase. A car worth $18,000 will have a price tag of $20,000. You can buy it for cash and haggle the dealer down to $18,000, or you can take that \"\"cheap\"\" 1.4% loan and pay $20,000 for the car. So if at all possible, you would try to get a cheap loan from your bank, possibly through your mortgage, so you can buy the car without taking a loan from the car dealer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45d2b43b6cff2e21050c2ac05f87d5f9",
"text": "You're not going to like this answer. You might be able to get out of the car. You probably won't be able to get out of the loan. Option #1 - Sell the car privately (you'll get more in a private sale) and get a private loan for the difference between the sale price and what you owe. Option #2 - If you go to a dealership that advertises that they will take any trade no matter how much you owe, they will roll your balance, less your trade in value, into your new loan. So for example, Let's say you buy a car for and borrow $20,000. The dealership gives you $6,000 for your trade because that's what they do that leaves $9,000 on your loan and you will end up borrowing $29,000 to buy a $20,000 car. Dealerships can be surprisingly accommodating but a lot of car buyers don't understand the terms of what they're getting into. I actually knew someone a few years ago who left a dealership with a new car and couldn't tell you anything about the deal beyond her monthly payment. Option #3 - Hang on to the car and throw every extra penny at it to get the balance down on the loan until you can get it to the point where you can sell it, trade it in or refi it without putting out a big one time cash payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61afca1ab51dceb80e7ed827b9f2c474",
"text": "For a $350 monthly payment, she is currently paying $200 monthly in interest. You say that no bank will refinance her, but that is not true, I'm sure many banks are happy to refinance her to the value of the car. She should start that process. You'll find that your suggestion to pay $5000 down on the current loan is pretty similar to what she would need to bring to a bank to refinance (maybe as much as $7000 to refinance). After that she would be paying a much lower amount in interest, and she could still retire the loan a year or two (but she would be paying even less in interest). The advantage to borrowing from her emergency fund is that she retires the loan 14 months earlier. The problem is that you are prioritizing the least amount paid, and she is prioritizing an emergency fund. Emergency funds are also very important. You might have better success if you prioritize paying back the emergency fund in your plan. If she puts $7000 down to refinance, assume a 3 year loan at 4.5% with a $150 monthly payment. Instead of paying down the remaining $5000 quickly what if she put the extra $200/month toward paying back her emergency fund? It would take the same 3 years to fully pay it back without impacting the rest of her budget at all. If she has extra room in her budget, she could pay back that emergency fund even faster. Many of us who prioritize minimizing interest paid and maximizing interest earned already have a robust emergency fund. Your girlfriend isn't wrong to value that. Unexpected emergencies can cause much more interest to be paid if there is no way to deal with them. (That's how paycheck and title lenders capture their customers.) Talk to her about what emergencies she might need the money for, and make a plan to replenish the fund, and you're much more likely to have her buy in.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc39ebc96f26ede3ea62f4829612c593",
"text": "\"Generally it is not recommended that you do anything potentially short-term deleterious to your credit during the process of seeking a mortgage loan - such as opening a new account, closing old accounts, running up balances, or otherwise applying for any kind of loan (people often get carried away and apply for loans to cover furniture and appliances for the new home they haven't bought yet). You are usually OK to do things that have at least a short-term positive effect, like paying down debt. But refinancing - which would require applying for a non-home loan - is exactly the sort of hard-pull that can drop your credit rating. It is not generally advised. The exception to this is would be if you have an especially unusual situation with an existing loan (like your car), that is causing a deal-breaking situation with your home loan. This would for example be having a car payment so high that it violates maximum Debt-to-Income ratios (DTI). If your monthly debt payments are more than 43% of your monthly income, for instance, you will generally be unable to obtain a \"\"qualified mortgage\"\", and over 28-36% will disqualify you from some lenders and low-cost mortgage options. The reason this is unusual is that you would have to have a bizarrely terrible existing loan, which could somehow be refinanced without increasing your debt while simultaneously providing a monthly savings so dramatic that it would shift your DTI from \"\"unacceptable\"\" to \"\"acceptable\"\". It's possible, but most simple consumer loan refis just don't give that kind of savings. In most cases you should just \"\"sit tight\"\" and avoid any new loans or refinances while you seek a home purchase. If you want to be sure, you'll need to figure out your DTI ratio (which I recommend anyway) and see where you would be before and after a car refinance. If this would produce a big swing, maybe talk with some mortgage loan professionals who are familiar with lending criteria and ask for their opinion as to whether the change would be worth it. 9 times out of 10, you should wait until after your loan is closed and the home is yours before you try to refinance your car. However I would only warn you that if you think your house + car payment is too much for you to comfortably afford, I'd strongly recommend you seriously reconsider your budget, current car ownership, and house purchasing plans. You might find that after the house purchase the car refi isn't available either, or fine print means it wouldn't provide the savings you thought it would. Don't buy now hoping an uncertain cost-saving measure will work out later.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f9f5b030ba22a07c5635bb76abf7cda",
"text": "The dealership is getting a kickback for having you use a particular bank to finance through. The bank assumes you will take the full term of the loan to pay back, and will hopefully be a repeat customer. This tactic isn't new, and although it maybe doesn't make sense to you, the consumer, in the long run it benefits the bank and the dealership. (They wouldn't do it otherwise. These guys have a lot of smart people running #s for them). Be sure to read the specifics of the loan contract. There may be a penalty for paying it off early. Most customers won't be able to pay that much in cash, so the bank makes a deal with the dealership to send clients their way. They will lose money on a small percentage of clients, but make more off of the rest of the clients. If there's no penalty for paying it off early, you may just want to take the financing offer and pay it off ASAP. If you truly can only finance $2500 for 6 mos, and get the full discount, then that might work as well. The bank had to set a minimum for the dealership in order to qualify as a loan that earns the discount. Sounds like that's it. Bonus Info: Here's a screenshot of Kelley Blue Book for that car. Car dealers get me riled up, always have, always will, so I like doing this kind of research for people to make sure they get the right price. Fair price range is $27,578 - $28,551. First time car buyers are a dealers dream come true. Don't let them beat you down! And here's more specific data about the Florida area relating to recent purchases:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a5c235f65fc1356e1a56bb1815957f7",
"text": "\"a link to this article grabbed my Interest as I was browsing the site for something totally unrelated to finance. Your question is not silly - I'm not a financial expert, but I've been in your situation several times with Carmax Auto Finance (CAF) in particular. A lot of people probably thought you don't understand how financing works - but your Car Loan set up is EXACTLY how CAF Financing works, which I've used several times. Just some background info to anyone else reading this - unlike most other Simple Interest Car Financing, with CAF, they calculate per-diem based on your principal balance, and recalculate it every time you make a payment, regardless of when your actual due date was. But here's what makes CAF financing particularly fair - when you do make a payment, your per-diem since your last payment accrued X dollars, and that's your interest portion that is subtracted first from your payment (and obviously per-diem goes down faster the more you pay in a payment), and then EVerything else, including Any extra payments you make - goes to Principal. You do not have to specify that the extra payment(S) are principal only. If your payment amount per month is $500 and you give them 11 payments of $500 - the first $500 will have a small portion go to interest accrued since the last payment - depending on the per-diem that was recalculated, and then EVERYTHING ELSE goes to principal and STILL PUSHES YOUR NEXT DUE DATE (I prefer to break up extra payments as precisely the amount due per month, so that my intention is clear - pay the extra as a payment for the next month, and the one after that, etc, and keep pushing my next due date). That last point of pushing your next due date is the key - not all car financing companies do that. A lot of them will let you pay to principal yes, but you're still due next month. With CAF, you can have your cake, and eat it too. I worked for them in College - I know their financing system in and out, and I've always financed with them for that very reason. So, back to the question - should you keep the loan alive, albeit for a small amount. My unprofessional answer is yes! Car loans are very powerful in your credit report because they are installment accounts (same as Mortgages, and other accounts that you pay down to 0 and the loan is closed). Credit cards, are revolving accounts, and don't offer as much bang for your money - unless you are savvy in manipulating your card balances - take it up one month, take it down to 0 the next month, etc. I play those games a lot - but I always find mortgage and auto loans make the best impact. I do exactly what you do myself - I pay off the car down to about $500 (I actually make several small payments each equal to the agreed upon Monthly payment because their system automatically treats that as a payment for the next month due, and the one after that, etc - on top of paying it all to principal as I mentioned). DO NOT leave a dollar, as another reader mentioned - they have a \"\"good will\"\" threshold, I can't remember how much - probably $50, for which they will consider the account paid off, and close it out. So, if your concern is throwing away free money but you still want the account alive, your \"\"sweet spot\"\" where you can be sure the loan is not closed, is probably around $100. BUT....something else important to consider if you decide to go with that strategy of keeping the account alive (which I recommend). In my case, CAF will adjust down your next payment due, if it's less than the principal left. SO, let's say your regular payment is $400 and you only leave a $100, your next payment due is $100 (and it will go up a few cents each month because of the small per-diem), and that is exactly what CAF will report to the credit bureaus as your monthly obligation - which sucks because now your awesome car payment history looks like you've only been paying $100 every month - so, leave something close to one month's payment (yes, the interest accrued will be higher - but I'm not a penny-pincher when the reward is worth it - if you left $400 for 1.5 years at 10% APR - that equates to about $50 interest for that entire time - well worth it in my books. Sorry for rambling a lot, I suck myself into these debates all the time :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b31d9b98a4891e6facb0202448d55049",
"text": "\"New car loans, used car loans, and refinances have different rates because they have different risks associated with them, different levels of ability to recoup losses if there is a default, and different customer profiles. (I'm assuming third party lender for all of these questions, not financing the dealer arranges, as that has other considerations built into it.) A new car loan is both safer to some extent (as the car is a \"\"known\"\" risk, having no risk of damage/etc. prior to purchase), but also harder to recoup losses (because new cars immediately devalue significantly, while used cars keep more of their value). Thus the APRs are a little different; in general for the same amount a new car will be a bit lower APR, but of course used car loans are typically lower amounts. Refinance is also different; customer profile wise, the customer who is refinancing in these times is likely someone who is a higher risk (as why are they asking for a loan when they're mostly paid off their car?). Otherwise it's fairly similar to a used car, though probably a bit newer than the average used car.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64fb7a323214f50afbc01fecc4753d61",
"text": "Your first step is to talk to the current lender and ask about refinancing in the other person's name. The lender is free to say no, and if they think the other person is unlikely to pay it back, they won't refinance. If you're in this situation because the other person didn't qualify for a loan in the first place, the lender probably won't change their mind, but it's still worth asking. From the lender's point of view, you'll be selling the other person the car. If they qualify for a loan, it's as simple as getting the loan from a bank, then doing whatever is required by your state to sell a car between either private parties or between relatives (depending on who the other person is). The bank might help you with this, or your state's DMV website. Here are a few options that don't involve changing who is on the loan: Taking out a loan for another person is always a big risk. Banks have entire departments devoted to determining who is a good credit risk, and who isn't, so if a person can't get a loan from a bank, it's usually for a good reason. One good thing about your situation: you actually bought the car, and are the listed owner. Had you co-signed on a loan in the other person's name, you'd owe the money, but wouldn't even have the car's value to fall back on when they stopped paying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f3147f6adedde8e9a6bfd15489cca35",
"text": "And then there is the issue of people who actually don't intend to reduce the size of their loan. They only want to pay the interest, so their debt with the bank remains constant. If you are upside down, it means you will not have the financial means to remove the debt. If, for some reason, you are no longer able to pay the bank, you might lose the house. After that you will have no house, but you still have a debt with the bank.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a206c27071eacece3ec36998856df507
|
How do you quantify investment risk?
|
[
{
"docid": "4a542f5a5340c9199f4b22c4bd526ec4",
"text": "\"The question is: how do you quantify investment risk? As Michael S says, one approach is to treat investment returns as a random variable. Bill Goetzmann (Yale finance professor) told me that if you accept that markets are efficient or that the price of an asset reflects it's underlying value, then changes in price represent changes in value, so standard deviation naturally becomes the appropriate measure for riskiness of an asset. Essentially, the more volatile an asset, the riskier it is. There is another school of thought that comes from Ben Graham and Warren Buffett, which says that volatility is not inherently risky. Rather, risk should be defined as the permanent loss of capital, so the riskiness of an asset is the probability of a permanent loss of capital invested. This is easy to do in casino games, based on basic probability such as roulette or slots. But what has been done with the various kinds of investment risks? My point is saying that certain bonds are \"\"low risk\"\" isn't good enough; I'd like some numbers--or at least a range of numbers--and therefore one could calculate expected payoff (in the statistics sense). Or can it not be done--and if not, why not? Investing is more art than science. In theory, a Triple-A bond rating means the asset is riskless or nearly riskless, but we saw that this was obviously wrong since several of the AAA mortgage backed securities (MBS) went under prior to the recent US recession. More recently, the current threat of default suggests that bond ratings are not entirely accurate, since US Treasuries are considered riskless assets. Investors often use bond ratings to evaluate investments - a bond is considered investment grade if it's BBB- or higher. To adequately price bonds and evaluate risk, there are too many factors to simply refer to a chart because things like the issuer, credit quality, liquidity risk, systematic risk, and unsystematic risk all play a factor. Another factor you have to consider is the overall portfolio. Markowitz showed that adding a riskier asset can actually lower the overall risk of a portfolio because of diversification. This is all under the assumption that risk = variance, which I think is bunk. I'm aware that Wall Street is nothing like roulette, but then again there must be some math and heavy economics behind calculating risk for individual investors. This is, after all, what \"\"quants\"\" are paid to do, in part. Is it all voodoo? I suspect some of it is, but not all of it. Quants are often involved in high frequency trading as well, but that's another note. There are complicated risk management products, such as the Aladdin system by BlackRock, which incorporate modern portfolio theory (Markowitz, Fama, Sharpe, Samuelson, etc) and financial formulas to manage risk. Crouhy's Risk Management covers some of the concepts applied. I also tend to think that when people point to the last x number of years of stock market performance, that is of less value than they expect. Even going back to 1900 provides \"\"only\"\" 110 years of data, and in my view, complex systems need more data than those 40,500 data points. 10,000 years' worth of data, ok, but not 110. Any books or articles that address these issues, or your own informed views, would be helfpul. I fully agree with you here. A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study \"\"complex adaptive systems,\"\" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a \"\"Margin of Safety.\"\" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "592918b1cf6d66a9a86a98c63e2ebbf6",
"text": "\"Another approach would be more personalized, which is to measure the risk of missing your goals, rather than measuring the risk of an investment in some abstract sense. Financial planners do this for example with Monte Carlo simulation software (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Carlo_method). They would put in a goal such as not running out of money before you die, with assumptions such as the longest you might live and how much you'll withdraw every year. You'd also assume an asset allocation. The Monte Carlo simulation then generates random market movements over the time period, considering historical behavior of your asset allocation, and each run of the simulation would either succeed (you are able to support yourself until death) or fail (you run out of money). The risk measure is the percentage of simulation runs that fail. You can do this to plan saving for retirement in addition to planning withdrawals; then your goal would be to have X amount of money in real after-inflation dollars, perhaps, and success is if you end up with it, and failure is if you don't. The great thing about this risk measure is that it's relevant and personal; \"\"10% chance of being impoverished at age 85,\"\" \"\"20% chance of having to work an extra decade because you don't have enough at 65,\"\" these kinds of answers. Which is a lot easier to act on than \"\"the variance is 10\"\" or \"\"the beta is 1.5\"\" - would you rather know your plan has a 90% chance of success, or know that you have a variance of 10? Both numbers are probably just guesses, but at least the \"\"chance of success\"\" measure is actionable and relevant. Some tangential thoughts FWIW:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "edc663e7d0c90c031d359caf3f23ca44",
"text": "\"The standard measure of risk is the variance of the asset. The return on investment of the asset is understood as a random variable with a particular distribution. One can make inferences about the underlying distribution using historical data. As you say, this is what the quants do. There are other, more sophisticated measures of risk that allow for such things as skewed distributions and Markov switching. If you are interested in learning more, I suggest starting with the foundations of Modern Portfolio Theory: \"\"Portfolio Selection\"\" by Harry Markowitz and \"\"Capital Asset Prices\"\" by William Sharpe.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a553405f8eccfb06d6fae1018d4ab54a",
"text": "\"For a retail investor who isn't a Physics or Math major, the \"\"Beta\"\" of the stock is probably the best way to quantify risk. Examples: A Beta of 1 means that a stock moves in line with the market. Over 1 means that you would expect the stock to move up or down faster than the market as a whole. Under 1 means that you would expect the stock to move slower than the market as a whole.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fe71dad8b6df9ac042bb484b3097c02",
"text": "I use two measures to define investment risk: What's the longest period of time over which this investment has had negative returns? What's the worst-case fall in the value of this investment (peak to trough)? I find that the former works best for long-term investments, like retirement. As a concrete example, I have most of my retirement money in equity, since the Sensex has had zero returns over as long as a decade. Since my investment time-frame is longer, equity is risk-free, by this measure. For short-term investments, like money put aside to buy a car next year, the second measure works better. For this purpose, I might choose a debt fund that isn't the safest, and has had a worst-case 8% loss over the past decade. I can afford that loss, putting in more money from my pocket to buy the car, if needed. So, I might choose this fund for this purpose, taking a slight risk to earn higher return. In any case, how much money I need for a car can only be a rough guess, so having 8% less than originally planned may turn out to be enough. Or it may turn out that the entire amount originally planned for is insufficient, in which case a further 8% shortfall may not be a big deal. These two measures I've defined are simple to explain and understand, unlike academic stuff like beta, standard deviation, information ratio or other mumbo-jumbo. And they are simple to apply to a practical problem, as I've illustrated with the two examples above. On the other hand, if someone tells me that the standard deviation of a mutual fund is 15%, I'll have no idea what that means, or how to apply that to my financial situation. All this suffers from the problem of being limited to historical data, and the future may not be like the past. But that affects any risk statistic, and you can't do better unless you have a time machine.",
"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": "672c768fdb59d145d9c0bd237b047b75",
"text": "\"In addition to individual stocks, your entire portfolio will also have a beta. It would be equal to the weighted sum of the individual asset betas So a beta portfolio of 1 would have approximate risk equal to a market index. You would use this to construct a risk level that you were comfortable with, given the expected return of the individual assets. You are also interested in obtaining a high level of \"\"alpha\"\" which means that your portfolio is earning more than what would be expected, given it's level of risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b92089939e283a69c66535a345f7ecee",
"text": "Ah, pardon me, so it's not *either* 10x return or zero, but also includes points in between there? Is it path dependent? Do you have any history on the asset? The usual crutches for dealing with unknown probabilities are using risk neutrality or arbitrage pricing, but if the market is inefficient then that will be an estimation at best.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3203580708f5da3c2fd8f0e3fa45ffb",
"text": "\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45fa1c42cb802137959a1d984b7e7935",
"text": "\"First of all, setting some basics: What is a sound way to measure the risk of each investment in order to compare them with each other ? There is no single way that can be used across all asset classes / risks. Generally speaking, you want to perform both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of risks that you identify. Quantitative risk assessment may involve historical data and/or parametric or non-parametric models. Using historical data is often simple but may be hard in cases where the amount of data you have on a given event is low (e.g. risk of bust by investing in a cryptocurrency). Parametric and non-parametric risk quantification models exist (e.g. Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES), etc) and abound but a lot of them are more complicated than necessary for an individual's requirements. Qualitative risk assessment is \"\"simply\"\" assessing the likelihood and severity of risks by using intuition, expert judgment (where that applies), etc. One may consult with outside parties (e.g. lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc) where their advisory may help highlighting some risks or understanding them better. To ease comparing investment opportunities, you may want to perform a risk assessment on categories of risks (e.g. investing in the stock market vs bond market). To compare between those categories, one should look at the whole picture (quantitative and qualitative) with their risk appetite in mind. Of course, after taking those macro decisions, you would need to further assess risks on more micro decisions (e.g. Microsoft or Google ?). You would then most likely end up with better comparatives as you would be comparing items similar in nature. Should I always consider the worst case scenario ? Because when I do that, I always can lose everything. Generally speaking, you want to consider everything so that you can perform a risk assessment and decide on your risk mitigating strategy (see Q4). By assessing the likelihood and severity of risks you may find that even in cases where you are comparatively as worse-off (e.g. in case of complete bust), the likelihood may differ. For example, keeping gold in a personal stash at home vs your employer going bankrupt if you are working for a large firm. Do note that you want to compare risks (both likelihood and severity) after any risk mitigation strategy you may want to put in place (e.g. maybe putting your gold in a safety box in a secure bank would make the likelihood of losing your gold essentially null). Is there a way to estimate the probability of such events, better than intuition ? Estimating probability or likelihood is largely dependent on data on hand and your capacity to model events. For most practical purposes of an individual, modelling would be way off in terms of reward-benefits. You may therefore want to simply research on past events and assign them a 1-5 (1 being very low, 5 being very high) risk rating based on your assessment of the likelihood. For example, you may assign a 1 on your employer going bankrupt and a 2 or 3 on being burglarized. This is only slightly better than intuition but has the merit of being based on data (e.g. frequency of burglary in your neighborhood). Should I only consider more probable outcomes and have a plan for them if they occur? This depends largely on your risk appetite. The more risk averse you are, the more thorough you will want to be in identifying, tracking and mitigating risks. For the risks that you have identified as relevant, or of concern, you may opt to establish a risk mitigating strategy, which is conventionally one of accepting, sharing (by taking insurance, for example), avoiding and reducing. It may not be possible to share or reduce some risks, especially for individuals, and so often the response will be either to accept or avoid the given risks by opting in or out on an opportunity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0af13625a8bea1d18a009d4c8ad44a5",
"text": "There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb3f28b892244b96c7cc97c1a527e4b0",
"text": "The investment return for a given strategy is directly proportional to the amount invested. Invest twice as much, profit (or lose) twice as much. It's a straight multiplier. However, there are some strategies which are less risky with a larger investment, and some investments which have a minimum unit of purchase that puts them out of reach of smaller investors.",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5b9a2379fe0e363b5e4f935c7eda594",
"text": "\"Defining risk tolerance is often aided with a series of questions. Such as - You are 30 and have saved 3 years salary in your 401(k). The market drops 33% and since you are 100% S&P, you are down the same. How do you respond? (a) move to cash - I don't want to lose more money. (b) ride it out. Keep my deposits to the maximum each year. Sleep like a baby. A pro will have a series of this type of question. In the end, the question resolves to \"\"what keeps you up at night?\"\" I recall a conversation with a coworker who was so risk averse, that CDs were the only right investment for her. I had to explain in painstaking detail, that our company short term bond fund (sub 1 year government paper) was a safe place to invest while getting our deposits matched dollar for dollar. In our conversations, I realized that long term expectations (of 8% or more) came with too high a risk for her, at any level of her allocation. Zero it was.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1885e147e142cd6a0fdf6862afa5b80a",
"text": "\"Specifically, what does my broker mean when they say an asset or investment strategy is high risk? In this context, it is a statement based on past events and probability. It is based on how confident s/he is that the investment will perform to certain benchmarks. This is a math question, primarily (with some opinion mixed in, granted). This is where the Sharpe ratio and others fit well. How am I supposed to answer a question like \"\"rate your risk tolerance from low to high\"\"? This is the hard question, as you have seen. In this context, risk tolerance is derived from your current position and future plans (goals). This is a planning, goal setting, and strategy question, primarily (with some math mixed in, granted). How vulnerable is your current position and future plans to an under-performing investment? If you answer \"\"very\"\", then you choose investments that have a lower probability of under-performing. The Sharpe ratio has little to do with answering this question. It is a tool to find investments that better match your answer to this question.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13bb3594d0833e52ea096698f9bc2d70",
"text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a690f0a2e0c41400119b5338b63d3b4",
"text": "There's probably a risk committee and an investment committee where several high level executives analyze and discuss the investments they will do and which risk level to take. Is all based on numbers and evidence, but in the end people decide how much risk to take. Then there Risk Management I suppose supervises the risk and that they don't go over the threshold (measured by VAR or whatever)",
"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": "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": "9ca69c8a36d5f98f88e70e04657e64bd",
"text": "Many of the above comments are correct about illiquidity. If someone needs to trade at a time of low liquidity, for instance when the markets are closed, the bid/ask spread can often be large to induce someone to trade at odd times. Especially as the broker/bank on the other side of the trade can't immediately go to the market to close out the risk as they often prefer to do. In this case the jump is actually is large but not that large (~4%). Note this trade price is near the close price on the day before. The system I use shows a trade that evening for 5 shares near the price on the graph. If you called me after I was done with work and tried to buy 5 shares I'd quote you a bad price too.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3696deeb4ae5c2029deb4543261c999a
|
How do I refinance a car loan into someone else's name so it can be their car?
|
[
{
"docid": "64fb7a323214f50afbc01fecc4753d61",
"text": "Your first step is to talk to the current lender and ask about refinancing in the other person's name. The lender is free to say no, and if they think the other person is unlikely to pay it back, they won't refinance. If you're in this situation because the other person didn't qualify for a loan in the first place, the lender probably won't change their mind, but it's still worth asking. From the lender's point of view, you'll be selling the other person the car. If they qualify for a loan, it's as simple as getting the loan from a bank, then doing whatever is required by your state to sell a car between either private parties or between relatives (depending on who the other person is). The bank might help you with this, or your state's DMV website. Here are a few options that don't involve changing who is on the loan: Taking out a loan for another person is always a big risk. Banks have entire departments devoted to determining who is a good credit risk, and who isn't, so if a person can't get a loan from a bank, it's usually for a good reason. One good thing about your situation: you actually bought the car, and are the listed owner. Had you co-signed on a loan in the other person's name, you'd owe the money, but wouldn't even have the car's value to fall back on when they stopped paying.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4df213786d0460d57a29a7a1b27d1624",
"text": "The other person has to decide that they want to be wholly responsible for the loan, and they have to be able to qualify for the loan. They are in essence purchasing the car from you with the sale price being the remaining balance of the loan. You will then use the processed from the new loan to pay the old loan off completely. They will then take the bill of sale to the state DMV/MVA to register the car in their name. You should have them start with their bank for a new car loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f087a10097e00e20918bd1d8411b4758",
"text": "\"I don't know of any way to \"\"transfer\"\" a debt to another person without their consent or the lender's consent. You are responsible for the loan, and you need to either pay it or give up the asset that it's tied to (the car). At least you weren't just a cosigner with no title to the car - then you'd be in worse shape. If you don't want your credit tarnished, I would start (or keep) making the payments, knowing that you are getting the equity that results from the principal you're paying (you're only out the interest portion). If it were me, here are the things I would do:\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2c540210799aeb05add7844bbddfbf02",
"text": "Between half a year and a year should be enough to improve your interest rates drastically on car loan refinance. Make sure that your new credit card has already been reported to the agencies, and that the credit/debt ratio is lower than 30% on your revolving (credit card) accounts. That also means that you shouldn't carry too much balance, even if the APR is 0%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45d2b43b6cff2e21050c2ac05f87d5f9",
"text": "You're not going to like this answer. You might be able to get out of the car. You probably won't be able to get out of the loan. Option #1 - Sell the car privately (you'll get more in a private sale) and get a private loan for the difference between the sale price and what you owe. Option #2 - If you go to a dealership that advertises that they will take any trade no matter how much you owe, they will roll your balance, less your trade in value, into your new loan. So for example, Let's say you buy a car for and borrow $20,000. The dealership gives you $6,000 for your trade because that's what they do that leaves $9,000 on your loan and you will end up borrowing $29,000 to buy a $20,000 car. Dealerships can be surprisingly accommodating but a lot of car buyers don't understand the terms of what they're getting into. I actually knew someone a few years ago who left a dealership with a new car and couldn't tell you anything about the deal beyond her monthly payment. Option #3 - Hang on to the car and throw every extra penny at it to get the balance down on the loan until you can get it to the point where you can sell it, trade it in or refi it without putting out a big one time cash payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee24f07034a377de82b18f0529c03443",
"text": "I think Joe is right, it seems that you will get the car once grandpa passes. It clearly states that on the DMV page. I would work like crazy to get this car paid off ASAP. Work extra and see if you can get it paid off in less than a year. Once paid off, have grandpa sign it over to you. This is a really toxic situation that you can reduce somewhat by having the car in your name only. Learn from this: have a will and keep it up to date. There is going to be a lot of fighting over the assets that grandpa leaves behind. You don't want that to be your legacy, and you don't want to tarnish your grandfathers memory by participating in such nonsense. My concern is why you have such poor credit. Understand that poor credit is a choice of behavior and there is no one to blame but yourself. I would recommend to stop borrowing completely until this car is paid off and all of your obligations are paid back (that is if you have items that are in collections). No vacations, no eating out, etc... Work don't spend.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "504089feb4bd30384b327605e231255a",
"text": "First step is determine how much equity is in the car (positive or negative). Then for your car payments has that been paid out of money that has already been split or is it from a pool that is still to be slit. If the later, then it is irrelevant to this discussion since it was from a joint pool. If the money has already been split then adjust her half of the equity in the car by what you have been paying an make her that offer for her half of the car. I recommend showing her the calculations so as to explain how you came with what she is owed and then let her make a counter offer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddf52fea02a2127de2b6cecea9f0f877",
"text": "\"Most personal loans in the US are for the purpose of purchasing some tangible object (usually a house or car) and that object is the collateral for the loan. Indeed, the loan proceeds are usually paid directly to the seller without passing through the bank account of the borrower, and the seller delivers the title of the car to the lender, or a mortgage lien is recorded on the real property. Except possibly in the case of a refinance of a home mortgage, there is not much cash from such a loan to send to a friend to invest in his business, whether in the US or in India. These types of loans are \"\"relatively easy\"\" to get. Much harder to get are unsecured personal loans. Unless your friend has a very friendly banker, getting an unsecured loan of, say, $20,000 \"\"just for the heck of it\"\" is not easy. Some reasonably well-off people do manage to get such loans and use the money to invest in the stock or bond markets, in which case, the interest paid on such loans can be deducted on Schedule A (but only to the extent of the actual investment income; any extras can be carried over to the next year). So, will your friend be investing in your business or making a loan to your business? and do you anticipate that your business will generate any investment income or interest for your friend? If not, and your friend still wants to finance your business (while making payments on the loan in the US), then your friend must really like you a lot (or have faith that a few years down the road, you will be able to sell your business to GoAppTel for mucho big bucks and pay him off very handsomely).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16e013dd52ed1d3c03a5c5567b83da8c",
"text": "\"I'm guessing since I don't know the term, but it sounds like you're asking about the technique whereby a loan is used to gather multiple years' gift allowance into a single up-front transfer. For the subsequent N years, the giver pays the installments on the loan for the recipient, at a yearly amount small enough to avoid triggering Gift Tax. You still have to pay income tax on the interest received (even though you're giving them the money to pay you), and you must charge a certain minimum interest (or more accurately, if you charge less than that they tax you as if the loan was earning that minimum). Historically this was used by relatively wealthy folks, since the cost of lawyers and filing the paperwork and bookkeeping was high enough that most folks never found out this workaround existed, and few were moving enough money to make those costs worthwhile. But between the \"\"Great Recession\"\" and the internet, this has become much more widely known, and there are services which will draw up standard paperwork, have a lawyer sanity-check it for your local laws, file the official mortgage lien (not actually needed unless you want the recipient to also be able to write off the interest on their taxes), and provide a payments-processing service if you do expect part or all of the loan to be paid by the recipient. Or whatever subset of those services you need. I've done this. In my case it cost me a bit under $1000 to set up the paperwork so I could loan a friend a sizable chunk of cash and have it clearly on record as a loan, not a gift. The amount in question was large enough, and the interpersonal issues tricky enough, that this was a good deal for us. Obviously, run the numbers. Websearching \"\"family loan\"\" will find much more detail about how this works and what it can and can't do, along with services specializing in these transactions. NOTE: If you are actually selling something, such as your share of a house, this dance may or may not make sense. Again, run the numbers, and if in doubt get expert advice rather than trusting strangers on the web. (Go not to the Internet for legal advice, for it shall say both mu and ni.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2230d1d67aebbf0cbe938d31de014c5",
"text": "\"Imagine that, a car dealership lied to someone trusting. Who would have thought. A big question is how well do you get along with your \"\"ex\"\"? Can you be in the same room without fighting? Can you agree on things that are mutually beneficial? The car will have to be paid off, and taken out of his name. The mechanics on how to do this is a bit tricky and you may want to see a lawyer about it. Having you being the sole owner of the car benefits him because he is no longer a cosigner on a loan. This will help him get additional loans if he chooses, or cosign on his next gf's car. And of course this benefits you as you \"\"own\"\" the car instead of both of you. You will probably have to refinance the car in your name only. Do you have sufficient credit? Once this happens can you pay off the car in like a year or so? If you search this site a similar questions is asked about once per month. Car loans are pretty terrible, in the future you should avoid them. Cosigning is even worse and you should never again participate in such a thing. Another option is to just sell the car and start over with your own car hopefully paid for in cash.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ff0eb373e33424d8d23565b07f33a629",
"text": "Does the full time PHD student extend to 70-80 hours/week or more? If not, can you pick up an extra job to aid with living expenses? Also, whose name is the debt in? Is your wife paying to avoid the black mark on her credit record or her mother's? Basically what it looks like to me is that you guys currently have a car you cannot afford and that her mother doesn't seem to be able to afford either, at a ridiculous interest rate on top. Refinancing might be an option but at a payoff amount of 12k you're upside down even when it comes to the KBB retail value. I'm somewhat allergic to financing a deprecating asset (especially at a quick back of the envelope calculation suggests that she's already paid them around $18k if you are indeed three years into the loan). What I would be tempted to do in your situation is to attempt to negotiate a lower payoff to see if they're willing to settle for less and give you clean title to the car - worst thing they can say is no, but you might be able to get the car for a little less than the $12k, then preferably use your emergency money to pay off the car and put it up for sale. Use some of the money to buy her a cheaper car for, say, $4k-$5k (or less if you're mechanically inclined) and put the rest back into your emergency fund. The problem I see with refinancing it would be that it looks like you're underwater from a balance vs retail value perspective so you might have a problem finding someone to refinance it with you throwing some of your emergency money at it in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3eec08f53ddb437a4e142b74fbd3492f",
"text": "Is your name on the title at all? You may have (slightly) more leverage in that case, but co-signing any loans is not a good idea, even for a friend or relative. As this article notes: Generally, co-signing refers to financing, not ownership. If the primary accountholder fails to make payments on the loan or the retail installment sales contract (a type of auto financing dealers sell), the co-signer is responsible for those payments, or their credit will suffer. Even if the co-signer makes the payments, they’re still not the owner if their name isn’t on the title. The Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) notes: If you co-sign a loan, you are legally obligated to repay the loan in full. Co-signing a loan does not mean serving as a character reference for someone else. When you co-sign, you promise to pay the loan yourself. It means that you risk having to repay any missed payments immediately. If the borrower defaults on the loan, the creditor can use the same collection methods against you that can be used against the borrower such as demanding that you repay the entire loan yourself, suing you, and garnishing your wages or bank accounts after a judgment. Your credit score(s) may be impacted by any late payments or defaults. Co-signing an auto loan does not mean you have any right to the vehicle, it just means that you have agreed to become obligated to repay the amount of the loan. So make sure you can afford to pay this debt if the borrower cannot. Per this article and this loan.com article, options to remove your name from co-signing include: If you're name isn't on the title, you'll have to convince your ex-boyfriend and the bank to have you removed as the co-signer, but from your brief description above, it doesn't seem that your ex is going to be cooperative. Unfortunately, as the co-signer and guarantor of the loan, you're legally responsible for making the payments if he doesn't. Not making the payments could ruin your credit as well. One final option to consider is bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is a drastic option, and you'll have to weigh whether the disruption to your credit and financial life will be worth it versus repaying the balance of that auto loan. Per this post: Another not so pretty option is bankruptcy. This is an extreme route, and in some instances may not even guarantee a name-removal from the loan. Your best bet is to contact a lawyer or other source of legal help to review your options on how to proceed with this issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f0be0fcccc3df7f7e18a5f1331b0aef",
"text": "Your over-thinking this. As long as the owner has the title and the vehicle is titled in there name they can sign it over to you then you can take it to the DMV and put it in your name. If they do not own the vehicle because they are still making payments then you will also need the signature from their bank or lien holder. You can ask to see their ID to verify they are the owner marked on the title. I've bought ~10 vehicles in the last 5 years and never had a problem doing it this way, my experiences have all been in California.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3a794578c9ef2130d3f3bb40b9b97aa",
"text": "Everybody on the car title will need to participate in the selling process. The person who is buying the car will need everybody to sign the paperwork so that nobody months later tries to say they never agreed to sell the car. The money will have to be sent to the lender to pay off the rest of the loan. If the money isn't enough to pay off the loan everybody will have to decide how the extra money will be sent to the lender. This will have to be done as part of the selling process because the lender doesn't want you to sell the car and keep the cash. Once the car is gone so is the collateral and they can't take it back if you miss payments. If the cousin is too far away to participate in the selling of the car, you may need the buyer and the lender to tell you how to proceeded. If you are selling at a dealership they will know what documents and signatures will be needed, the bank will also know what to do. If the loan is almost paid off it may be easier to pay the loan first, and then get the title without the lenders name before trying to sell it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dbbd5514b243927ca57f2e225547cd7",
"text": "Anytime you borrow money at that rate, you are getting ripped off. One way to rectify this situation is to pay the car off as soon as possible. You can probably get a second job that makes $1000 per month. If so you will be done in 4 months. Do that and you will pay less than $300 in interest. It is a small price to pay for an important lesson. While you can save some money refinancing, working and paying the loan off is, in my opinion a better option. Even if you can get the rate down to 12%, you are still giving too much money to banks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30f16531b7454d3d187e72c0f44fc93f",
"text": "\"—they will pull your credit report and perform a \"\"hard inquiry\"\" on your file. This means the inquiry will be noted in your credit report and count against you, slightly. This is perfectly normal. Just don't apply too many times too soon or it can begin to add up. They will want proof of your income by asking for recent pay stubs. With this information, your income and your credit profile, they will determine the maximum amount of credit they will lend you and at what interest rate. The better your credit profile, the more money they can lend and the lower the rate. —that you want financed (the price of the car minus your down payment) that is the amount you can apply for and in that case the only factors they will determine are 1) whether or not you will be approved and 2) at what interest rate you will be approved. While interest rates generally follow the direction of the prime rate as dictated by the federal reserve, there are market fluctuations and variances from one lending institution to the next. Further, different institutions will have different criteria in terms of the amount of credit they deem you worthy of. —you know the price of the car. Now determine how much you want to put down and take the difference to a bank or credit union. Or, work directly with the dealer. Dealers often give special deals if you finance through them. A common scenario is: 1) A person goes to the car dealer 2) test drives 3) negotiates the purchase price 4) the salesman works the numbers to determine your monthly payment through their own bank. Pay attention during that last process. This is also where they can gain leverage in the deal and make money through the interest rate by offering longer loan terms to maximize their returns on your loan. It's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just how they have to make their money in the deal. It's good to know so you can form your own analysis of the deal and make sure they don't completely bankrupt you. —is that you can comfortable afford your monthly payment. The car dealers don't really know how much you can afford. They will try to determine to the best they can but only you really know. Don't take more than you can afford. be conservative about it. For example: Think you can only afford $300 a month? Budget it even lower and make yourself only afford $225 a month.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "795e112ad3c0a82dbbb6c2ad2b694d40",
"text": "It's her car. Unlike what Ross said in the comments she can't sign it over to you--she doesn't own it yet. The best you'll be able to do is have her leave it to you in her will--but beware that you very well might need to refinance the loan at that point.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e75f93da64387ecaa1aa9283f7e38ac",
"text": "You're driving a car worth about $6000 which has a $12,000 loan against it. You're driving around in a nett debt of $6000. The best thing your grandfather could do for you, if possible, is to take your name off both the title and the loan, refinancing the car in his name only. If possible while still letting you drive the car. When he dies, you will be out of a car, but also out of a $12,000 debt which I'm sure you could do without. Okay, the best thing your grandfather could do, from your wallet's point of view, is paying off the loan for you and then taking his name off the title.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
70ed49c17478687796255385f61615ca
|
How to improve credit score and borrow money
|
[
{
"docid": "c138391e73776ca0eda4e01fa2c3c5ac",
"text": "\"No you should not borrow money at 44.9%. I would recommend not borrowing money except for a home with a healthy deposit (called down payment outside UK). in December 2016, i had financial crisis So that was like 12 days ago. You make it sound like the crisis was a total random event, that you did nothing to cause it. Financial crises are rarely without fault. Common causes are failure to understand risk, borrowing too much, insuring too little, improper maintenance, improper reserves, improper planning, etc... Taking a good step or two back and really understanding the cause of your financial crisis and how it could be avoided in the future is very useful. Talk to someone who is actually wealthy about how you could have behaved differently to avoid the \"\"crisis\"\". There are some small set of crises that are no fault of your own. However in those cases the recipe to recovery is patience. Attempting to recover in 12 days is a recipe for further disaster. Your willingness to consider borrowing at 44% suggests this crisis was self-inflicted. It also indicates you need a whole lot more education in personal finance. This is reinforced by your insatiable desire for a high credit score. Credit score is no indication of wealth, and is meaningless until you desire to borrow money. From what I read, you should not be borrowing money. When the time comes for you to buy a home with a mortgage, its fairly easy to have a high enough credit score to borrow at a good rate. You get there by paying your bills on time and having a sufficient deposit. Don't chase a high credit score at the expense of building real wealth.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5b92a33a768b2c9518af6780efc58ef",
"text": "\"I had to apply for an American Express card, which was also rejected. Then I had searched for a Marbles Credit Card Stop applying for credit cards/loans. Doing so is just making your credit rating worse. Credit agencies will downgrade your credit rating if they see lots of signs of credit checking. It's a sign you're desperately looking for credit, which you are...! 44.9% APR This is very expensive credit. You can get personal loans on the high street for 3-4%. 44.9% is really bad value. You're simply going to make the situation worse. Am I taking off a loan from website as amingos loans to help me build up my credit rating Again this is 44% interest! You also need a guarantor. So you're not only going to get yourself in trouble but a family member too: don't do this! This will only help your credit rating if you pay it back successfully, which given your situation seems like a risk. Contact the Money Advice Service or the National Debt Line. Explain your situation in detail to them. They are a government-backed service designed for people in your situation. They will offer practical advice and can even help negotiate with your creditors, etc. Here's some general advice about getting out of debt from Money Saving Expert Traditional debt help says 'never borrow your way out of a debt problem'. But this ignores the varying cost of different debts. The MoneySaving approach is: \"\"Never borrow more to get out of a debt problem.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1c6f4d4d60e2d0ab33a4dc222df18be3",
"text": "It sort of sounds like you want to contradictory things: (1) to fix your credit so you will be able to get loans and (2) to have more money available to spend now. It sounds like the latter is probably not possible. Not without getting into a worse situation than you are currently in (based on what you have written the next step is payday loans and the like, which is basically financial suicide). Fixing your credit is simple. It's just not fun. Cut your spending. Cut it way, way, way down. You will certainly have to change your lifestyle. I'd suggest taking a second job. Make the minimum payment on everything, then put all your extra money toward the most pressing things: I would focus on the former. As you pay down your debt your utilization will go down, and this will raise your score automatically. When you pay off your highest interest rate debt, don't change your spending. Instead put everything you were putting to that to the next highest debt you have. Continue until your highest interest rate loan is at or below the mortgage rate. When you get to this point you will notice that your credit score is vastly better and you are no longer spending all your money on interest. You will probably be in a position to buy a home. And you will have the satisfaction of knowing you did it yourself, rather than having a bankruptcy judge force you to change your lifestyle. A note on the items in collections: make sure they are all legit. If any are wrong, it is pretty straightforward to contest them with the credit bureaus and get them taken off. Things in collections will drop your score severely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6de2264a0a9d82015be6c5d897c27ebd",
"text": "I have a car loan paid in full and even paid off early, and 2 personal loans paid in full from my credit union that don't seem to reflect in a positive way and all 3 were in good standing. But you also My credit card utilization is 95%. I have a total of 4 store credit cards, a car loan, 2 personal loans. So assuming no overlap, you've paid off three of your ten loans (30%). And you still have 95% utilization. What would you do if you were laid off for six months? Regardless of payment history, you would most likely stop making payments on your loans. This is why your credit score is bad. You are in fact a credit risk. Not due to payment history. If your payment history was bad, you'd likely rank worse. But simple fiscal reality is that you are an adverse event away from serious fiscal problems. For that matter, the very point that you are considering bankruptcy says that they are right to give you a poor score. Bankruptcy has adverse effects on you, but for your creditors it means that many of them will never get paid or get paid less than what they loaned. The hard advice that we can give is to reduce your expenses. Stop going to restaurants. Prepare breakfast and supper from scratch and bag your lunch. Don't put new expenses on your credit cards unless you can pay them this month. Cut up your store cards and don't shop for anything but necessities. Whatever durables (furniture, appliances, clothes, shoes, etc.) you have now should be enough for the next year or so. Cut your expenses. Have premium channels on your cable or the extra fast internet? Drop back to the minimum instead. Turn the heat down and the A/C temperature up (so it cools less). Turn off the lights if you aren't using them. If you move, move to a cheaper apartment. Nothing to do? Get a second job. That will not only keep you from being bored, it will help with your financial issues. Bankruptcy will not itself fix the problems you describe. You are living beyond your means. Bankruptcy might make you stop living beyond your means. But it won't fix the problem that you make less money than you want to spend. Only you can do that. Better to stop the spending now rather than waiting until bankruptcy makes your credit even worse and forces you to cut spending. If you have extra money at the end of the month, pick the worst loan and pay as much of it as you can. By worst, I mean the one with the worst terms going forward. Highest interest rate, etc. If two loans have the same rate, pay the smaller one first. Once you pay off that loan, it will increase the amount of money you have left to pay off your other loans. This is called the debt snowball (snowball effect). After you finish paying off your debt, save up six months worth of expenses or income. These will be your emergency savings. Once you have your emergency fund, write out a budget and stick to it. You can buy anything you want, so long as it fits in your budget. Avoid borrowing unless absolutely necessary. Instead, save your money for bigger purchases. With savings, you not only avoid paying interest, you may actually get paid interest. Even if it's a low rate, paid to you is better than paying someone else. One of the largest effects of bankruptcy is that it forces you to act like this. They offer you even less credit at worse terms. You won't be able to shop on credit anymore. No new car loan. No mortgage. No nice clothes on credit. So why declare bankruptcy? Take charge of your spending now rather than waiting until you can't do anything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "941588d47aacbc1883e1d105c11e0b4b",
"text": "\"Credit is like dignity - it takes a long time to build but a short time to lose. Your credit history is mostly made up of your prior activity for several years. There's no \"\"quick fix\"\" to raise your credit score in a short period. Paying your student loans on time will help, but it will take quite some time for that activity to make a big difference in your credit. If you can't get approved for a car loan of $15k, then perhaps it's time to either reset your expectations or save up enough to make a large down payment on a more expensive car. Instead of prepaying your student loans that are not due, save up that money for a down payment. You can get an incredibly reliable car for much less than $15,000. Also, make sure that you will be able to afford the car payment when your student loans do become due (based on your current salary, not some hypothetical future salary) Another plan: drive your car for another year, pay off your student loans in that time, and then you might have enough credit history to get a better loan.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "884869eb776691173df3f901fce8830c",
"text": "\"In the sole interest of improving your credit score, the thing you should focus on is lowering your overall utilization. The best thing you could do for this would be to get a loan to reconsolidate your credit card debts into a single, long term loan. The impact of this is that your credit card utilization, assuming the loan covers 100% of your balances, will suddenly drop to 0%, as you'll no longer have a balance on the cards. Additionally, at this point, with a consolidation loan, you'll be building loan history by making steady, fixed payments on the loan. The loan will also, ideally, have a significantly lower interest rate than the cards, and thus will save you money that you'd otherwise be spending on interest. A lot of others here will feed you some additonal, irrelevant advice - \"\"Pay off X credit card first!\"\"; Ideally, you need to eliminate this debt. But to directly address the question of how you could improve your credit score, based on your utilization, I believe the best option would be for you to reconsolidate your credit card debt into a single loan, to reduce your utilization on the cards.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b45f60932598a0048bdf60b0586a8de",
"text": "An activity which can help improve your credit score and actually make you money is stoozing. It's a little complicated but can be beneficial to do. Using either a credit card which allows fee free money withdrawals from cashpoints or building up debt using your credit card gives you access to your credit amount. You then use a long term 0% balance transfer card to transfer the debt which you pay off at the minimum rate. It's 0% so no costs are associated except for the initial fee paid for the balance transfer amount. The money that would have been used to pay off the credit amount (or money withdrawn from a cashpoint) can then be deposited in a savings account so you are now earning interest on the credit balance. Continuing to make monthly minimum payments via direct debit will help improve your credit rating and the savings money will earn interest. (it is also available if you suddenly need to pay off the 0% card)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3fcbad362ce5138359e0b7103fc7650",
"text": "\"The comments section to Dilip's reply is overflowing. First - the OP (Graphth) is correct in that credit scoring has become a game. A series of data points that predicts default probability, but of course, offers little chance to explain why you applied for 3 loans (all refinancing to save money on home or rentals) got new credit cards (to get better rewards) and have your average time with accounts drop like a rock (well, I canceled the old cards). The data doesn't dig that deep. To discuss the \"\"Spend More With Plastic?\"\" phenomenon - I have no skin in the game, I don't sell credit card services. So if the answer is yes, you spend more with cards, I'll accept that. Here's my issue - The studies are all contrived. Give college students $10 cash and $10 gift cards and send them into the cafeteria. Cute, but it produces no meaningful data. I can tell you that when I give my 13yr old $20 cash, it gets spent very wisely. A $20 Starbucks card, and she's treating friends and family to lattes. No study needed, the result is immediate and obvious. Any study worth looking at would first separate the population into two groups, those who pay in full each month and those who carry a balance. Then these two groups would need to be subdivided to study their behavior if they went all cash. Not a simply survey, and not cheap to get a study of the number of people you need for meaningful data. I've read quotes where The David claimed that card users spend 10% more than cash users. While I accept that Graphth's concern is valid, that he may spend more with cards than cash, there is no study (that I can find) which correlates to a percentage result as all studies appear to be contrived with small amounts to spend. As far as playing the game goes - I can charge gas, my cable bill, and a few other things whose dollar amounts can't change regardless. (Unless you're convinced I'll gas up and go joy-riding) Last - I'd love to see any link in the comments to a meaningful study. Quotes where conclusions are stated but no data or methodology don't add much to the discussion. Edit - Do You Spend More with Cash or Credit? is an article by a fellow Personal Finance Blogger. His conclusion is subjective of course, but along the same path that I'm on with this analysis.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b1622d00b8e5930ff7cf8b02cd26ee96",
"text": "the best thing to do is file bankrupt. your credit will be shot for 7 to 10 years. however usually 3 years after the bankrupt people will give you small lines of credit. then you rebuild on the small credit lines. and never get into a bad loan again you learn from mistakes. there is no shame in a mistake if you learned from it. I rebuilt my credit by using fingerhut. small credit limit on a cap 1 credit card 300 dollars unsecured card. personal loan of 1500 dollars to buy a old clunk for a car as I did not want to have five years of car payments. you can also get a secured credit card. and build credit with that. the bank will explain how to build credit using your own money. also you should know a lot of banks like your bankrupt stat. because they no you cant file for several more years. meaning if you don't pay your loan they can garnish you and you cant file bankrupt. you can get a new car loan with good interest rate. by taking 5000 dollars of your 15000 dollars savings down on the new loan. making your new car loan have better payments cheaper and better interest. and get a secured credit card of 2000 to build towards a unsecured credit card. keep all your new credit tabs small and pay on time.i would not use all your nest egg savings. that is not smart. get a lawyer and file. stay in school you will have a fresh start and you learned about upside down loans. don't listen to people trying to tell you bankruptsy is bad. it in a lot of ways gives you the upper hand in a no win debt or debts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "607d3d93fe01a67524bee2141178e60a",
"text": "The short answer is, with limited credit, your best bet might be an FHA loan for first time buyers. They only require 3.5% down (if I recall the number right), and you can qualify for their loan programs with a credit score as low as 580. The problem is that even if you were to add new credit lines (such as signing up for new credit cards, etc.), they still take time to have a positive effect on your credit. First, your score takes a bit of a hit with each new hard inquiry by a prospective creditor, then your score will dip slightly when a new credit account is first added. While your credit score will improve somewhat within a few months of adding new credit and you begin to show payment history on those accounts, your average age of accounts needs to be two years or older for the best effect, assuming you're making all of the payments on time. A good happy medium is to have between 7 and 10 credit lines on your credit history, and to make sure it's a mix of account types, such as store cards, installment loans, and credit cards, to show that you can handle various types of credit. Be careful not to add TOO much credit, because it affects your debt-to-income ratio, and that will have a negative effect on your ability to obtain mortgage financing. I really suggest that you look at some of the sites which offer free credit scores, because some of them provide great advice and tips on how to achieve what you're trying to do. They also offer credit score simulators, which can help you understand how your score might change if, for instance, you add new credit cards, pay off existing cards, or take on installment loans. It's well worth checking out. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47e4a136a1b1019b45bf9b0a82416088",
"text": "this article talks about tips you can use to improve your chances of qualifying for a credit card, even if you have poor credit standing. please help us promote it by telling your friends to drop by our site and share the articles posted there to their friends.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e95987a92f63bdf095dc2a39b0c1dd9",
"text": "I do this all the time, my credit rating over time plotted on a graph looks like saw blades going upward on a slope I use a credit alert service to get my credit reports quarterly, and I know when the credit agencies update their files (every three months), so I never have a high balance at those particular times Basically, I use the negative hard pulls to propel my credit score upwards with a the consequentially lowered credit utilization ratio, and the credit history. So here is how it works for me, but I am not an impulse buyer and I wouldn't recommend it for most people as I have seen spending habits: Month 1: charge cards, pay minimum balance (raises score multiple points) Month 2: PAY OFF ALL CREDIT CARDS, massive deleveraging using actual money I already have (raises score multiple points) Month 3: get credit report showing low balance, charge cards, pay minimum balance ask for extensions of credit, AND followup on new credit line offers (lowers score several points per credit inquiry) Month 4: charge cards, pay minimum balance, discretionally approving hard pulls - always have room for one or two random hard pulls, such as for a new cell phone contract, or renting a car, or employment, etc Month 5: PAY OFF CREDIT CARDS using actual money you have. (the trick is to NEVER really go above a 15% credit utilization ratio, and to never overleverage. Tricky because very quickly you will get enough credit to go bankrupt) Month 6: get credit report showing low balances, a slight dip in score from last quarter, but still high continue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "002995b7cc43d484b4ddabdab7b323a7",
"text": "I wouldn't worry about his credit score. The hit from a credit inquiry is not that big and it's absolutely worth it in the long run. I suggest you sign him up for a free budgeting app (just google budgeting app) that will help him not only take control of his spending but also help him with his loans. Transferring debt comes with a few caveats: His credit score is bad so I don't know if he'll be able to get 0% loan, but even if he gets 6% - 8% that will save him money; just don't forget about the transfer fee. If he has checking/savings account it's worth talking to that bank first - they might be able to give him a better deal for being their customer. Also if he tells them his story and credit score they might be able to give him an idea what they can offer him without doing a credit check. Another option is to become a member of a local credit union - they have great rates on loans / credit cards. Credit card or personal loan doesn't matter much, whatever he can get. With his credit score I doubt he'll be able to get a good rate at Chase or one of the other big credit card companies. Good luck.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cc74c0c1cae2db291c3e93b4ee0c806",
"text": "If you give me $216k to trash my credit report, I'll take it every time. People place too much value on the ability to borrow rather than having cash up front. I never pay interest (I do use a credit card and pay it off every month). Why would you need to borrow money if you effectively got handed $200k? Of course, if your networth went from -$200k to 0, you are still broke. But considering that you were in that situation in the first place, the inability to borrow money may be a good thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "125affbda803ce37568e01e5254d56ba",
"text": "\"Its really, really good of you to admit your short comings with a desire to improve them. It takes courage. Keep in mind that most of us that answer questions here are really \"\"good at money\"\" so we have a hard time relating. Would you want people that are bad with money answering questions on a personal finance site? While it is intimidating you will need a budget. A budget is simply a plan for how to spend your money. Your budget, based on your new pay frequency, will likely also need some cash flow planning as a single paycheck is unlikely to cover your largest expenses. For example your rent/mortgage might be less than a single paycheck so you will have to save money from the previous paycheck to have enough money to pay it. Your best bet is to have a friend or relative that is good with money help you setup a budget. Do you have one? If not you might inquire about a church or organization that offers Financial Peace University. The teachers of the class often help people setup a budget and might be willing to do so for you. You could also take the class which will improve your money management skills. For $100 you'll have a lifetime pass to the class. If it helps you avoid three late charges/bounce checks then the class is well worth it. Now as far as spending too much money. I would recommend cash, but you have to do it the right way. Here is the process that you have to follow to be successful with cash: Doing cash will give you a more concrete example of what spending means. It won't work if you continue to hit the ATM \"\"for just $20 more\"\". It will take you a bit to get used to it, but you will be surprised how quickly you improve at managing money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d25d5067eaead3d30118b819d8e4d94",
"text": "Yes you can do this yourself. I cannot speak for all the credit repair companies, but generally they are not reputable. Even if they are trustworthy, they cannot do anything you cannot do yourself. Freeze your credit. Lock it down and prevent any new activity. This is for safety and I want you to do it so you know where you stand. Get a copy of your free copies of the three credit reports from https://www.annualcreditreport.com/ (this is the only free, official place to get your reports) Sign up for a free credit score estimation site like http://www.CreditKarma.com or http://www.CreditSesame.com (These sites make money by selling affiliate offers, but you can easily ignore them) You can't get your exact FICO score, but they letter grades they provide help you understand where you stand. Dispute anything that is not accurate. Get wrong items corrected with the credit agency. Ignore collectors who are not showing up on your report. If they aren't reporting you, so what? Let your own moral compass be your guide if you pay those debts or not. Negotiate a payment amount with the debtors you owe. If you are dealing with a debt collector, there isn't any point in paying the full amount. You owed the money to somebody else, and they sold it to the debt collector, therefore in my mind they are as whole as they feel like being. It is up to you how much you pay, but you are already going to suffer (and have suffered) the credit ramifications. No sense in wasting money when they will very likely settle for dimes on the dollar. Don't let them bully you around. I suggest understand your rights and protections as offered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Before you pay anybody anything, get it IN WRITING Wait and follow up. Make sure they report it correctly. I would probably tackle them in order of age, newest first. Don't bother with debts that are more than, or nearly seven years old. Anything that old is or will fall off of the credit report soon, and your score will start to rise. Paying on those debts will refresh them and they will harm you longer. We can debate the ethics of that advice in the comments, but if you want your score to raise, I suggest just waiting about anything over six years old while you tackle the newer ones. This is a SLOW process. Your credit score will still take a couple years to heal once you fix your report. But that is the point of the score after all. It is a history of how you handle money and debt.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a83f2509dd446926c5835164c3ac2c89",
"text": "\"First, you've learned a very good lesson that quite a few people miss out on: notice how easy it is to get out of debt when you get a windfall of money? The trouble is that if a person doesn't have the behavior to maintain their position, they will end up in the same place. Many lottery winners end up being poor in the long run because their behavior is the problem, not their finances. If you feel that you're going to end up in debt again, this means simply that somewhere in your finances, your expenses exceed your income. Simply put, there's only two fundamental things that can be done: You can do one or the other, or both. Over budgeting, I prefer automation - automate your bills and spending by setting up a bill and spending account and when the money's gone, it's gone (you can tell yourself at that point, \"\"I have to find another source of income before I spend more\"\"). This not only helps you show where your money is going now, it also puts a constraint on your spending, which sounds like most of the problem currently. Many of my friends and I make our saved/invested money VERY HARD to access, so that we can't get it immediately (like putting it in an account that will require three or four days to get to). The purpose of this is to shape your behavior into actions of either increasing your income, decreasing your spending, or both.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1aeaaaf2ee0d91202d40aaaeb082220d
|
Relocating for first real job out of college?
|
[
{
"docid": "24e89f05d52cffef16050cbd91e53eef",
"text": "Source: I'm recently (2 years) out of college (Info Sciences + Technology degree) Disclaimer: Speaking from limited personal experience (see above) A lot of corporate recruiters like the prospect of hiring recent college grads of because of the location flexibility they have (typically own no real estate, are not married, and have no children). If you get a job with Amazon and relocate, take a year to settle your finances, then determine if purchasing a house is something you can manage. If you don't have a savings set aside for a reasonable down payment on a house, you'll get hit with a mortgage insurance payment each month =\\, and that's not fun. Don't try to do too much at once, and make sure you have a full assessment of your finances before making any major purchases. I follow this general rule: Every few months, I fully re-assess our expenditures, and see what we can cut out or cut back on, put a bit into savings, and put the rest against outstanding student loans.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a3cbcb693bfa4fa439a973ca08d06e18",
"text": "\"If the job looks good, I wouldn't let having to relocate stop you. Some companies will help you with relocation expenses, like paying travel expenses, the movers, the security deposit on an apartment, etc. It doesn't hurt to ask if they \"\"help with moving expenses\"\". If they say no, fine. I wouldn't expect a company to decide not to hire you for asking such a question. I would certainly not buy immediately upon moving. Buying a house is a serious long-term commitment. What if after a few months you discover that this job is not what you thought it was? What if you discover that you hate the area for whatever reason? Etc. Or even if you are absolutely sure that won't happen, it's very hard to buy a house long distance. How many trips can you make to look at different houses, learn about neighborhoods, get a feel for market prices, etc? A few years ago I moved just a couple of hundred miles to a neighboring state, and I rented an apartment for about 2 years before buying a house, for all these reasons. Assuming the company won't help with moving expenses, do you have the cash to make the move? If you're tight, it doesn't have to be all that expensive. If you're six months out of college you probably don't have a lot of stuff. (When I got my first job out of college, I fit everything I owned in the back seat of my Pinto, and tied my one piece of furniture to the roof. :-) If you can't fit all your stuff in your car, rent a truck and a tow bar to pull your car behind. Get a cheap apartment. You'll probably have to pay the first month's rent plus a security deposit. You can usually furnish your first apartment from garage sales and the like very cheaply. If you don't have the cash, do you have credit cards, or can your parents loan you some money? (They might be willing to loan you money to get you out of their house!)\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "069df27e615ddb3c46538007eb681d7e",
"text": "Yea, bay area. If you want oil, you move to houston. If you want tech money, you move to the bay area. You can stay here for a year or two to lock down that you command a bay area salary and then do like I did and fuck off to SE asia and work remote.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee3ec0359348259ebd68a955d2232e1b",
"text": "\"70k is doable, but to get that right out of school you will need experience at a real company. The investment club sounds cool, but it doesn't carry as much weight. Companies need to be able to call someone you worked for and verify that you are a worthy employee. Also, your club won't count towards \"\"experience\"\" - which is required nowadays for an entry level position. Get an internship, ASAP and put that ahead of everything including grades. source: '15 grad\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "466bb57d2eae53474072bb7dbf608105",
"text": "\"Maybe. I've been applying to jobs that require things like SQL and high level excel. I have some experience with these but I kept getting passed over for \"\"more qualified candidates\"\" so I get the sense there is a surplus of overqualified candidates, not recent college graduates. Also Linkedin stats will sometimes show as high as 50% of applicants having graduate degrees. And again this is for entry level business/data analyst positions. IMO the job market feels absolutely saturated with qualified candidates. I am looking around the NYC area however so maybe that just comes with the territory.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e82805308ca1e1cdea140f38bb6bb07f",
"text": "Non-target undergrad in the south, but I networked with right people. Through the finance clubs I got an equity research role for the school's investment fund and leveraged that for an interview at a home developer but the partners there ultimately went with someone else. They happened to be investors at the firm I currently work at and thought my background would make me a good fit. Once I started working there, I took on as many projects/responsibilities as I could. I'm actually in the process of partnering up with the trader to take on some outside investors and get his algos running. He's been trading for ~25 years and I couldn't believe what his returns were at first, so I'm fairly excited to work with him.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f438c02eddeb554b92923ca4d3f20c0",
"text": "If your goal is to work in the U.S. then it would make sense to attend a U.S. university. American companies are going to recruit on american campuses after all. Or you could stay in Europe and target a U.S. multinational after graduation. Fluent English and another European language would be a big plus. (it's not much of an 'international' business degree if it doesn't include a language)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "775cc76e0e97b6566a73cae0726be16b",
"text": "The key to getting a job in college and for the rest of your life is networking and knowing exactly where you want to work not a business card. During a career fair, recruiters get flocked hundreds of students who don't know shit about the company or industry. All you need to do is research the company and figure out what makes it better than it's competitors. Then when you talk to a recruiter at the fair, be sure to slip it into the conversation. Recruiters are looking for people who fit the companies culture. Make sure you structure your elevator pitch in a way that aligns with it perfectly. If you do these things, I guarantee you will get an interview assuming you have the minimum GPA",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ace63d7cb61bc407eb511a2ee5eb6c2d",
"text": "\"To receive unemployment benefits, you must be registered with an employment agency and be actively seeking work, and be willing to accept work should it be offered to you. As a full-time Cornell University student, as you describe yourself, this does not seem a likely scenario. Also, you need to have established a state of residence. It is not clear to me that you have done so, given your travel between the South Pacific, Ithaca, New York, North Carolina etc. You should check with your local state unemployment office in New York State, or perhaps North Carolina, although I don't know if you satisfy residency requirements in either state. They will be able to confirm however. Are your parents claiming you as a dependent on their federal income taxes? If so, I do not believe that you will be able to file for unemployment benefits, regardless of your student status at Cornell University. One more issue to consider: Have you filed tax returns for the income you received from your television production work? I am uncertain of the amount, as you said that you worked for two 4-month intervals making $10,000. That implies $20,000 of earnings over two years. Yet your bullet point number 7 states that you made \"\"10 grand each of the four months\"\". If that means that you made $10,000 per month for four months, then you earned $40,000 per summer, for a total of $80,000 for two summer's worth of work. I don't think unemployment benefits are intended for individuals in your situation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0f4e71ca3e4d125fc94a8d1dbfdc9e8",
"text": "Housing prices are inseparable from the job market of an area. The 40k you want to use as a down payment will buy an entire house outright in many places of the country that have no jobs. If your job is mobile why not follow cheap housing, even if it is just to rent?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b01c6e1d2a78ef5f00f3ba1ab810f5f4",
"text": "\"To begin, I'm not sure you understand what COL refers to. It's what you spend, not what you bring in. Let's say Bob makes 60k in some midwest town, but spends 30k for living. If his salary and his cost of living both increase at the same rate, let's say they both double, this means Bob now makes 120k but spends 60k. He now saves double what he would have before. That 30k extra saved is 30k extra saved. His purchasing power has now gone greatly up, especially in respect to housing outside of an expensive area like the valley. For one, let me clear this up - SF, the city itself, is expensive. I'm talking more generally about the bay area, and silicon valley as a whole. Most tech jobs from the big tech companies that we think of as \"\"the bay\"\" are not in SF. they are in mountain view, Sunnyvale, and that area. So this might explain some of our disagreements. Most people who work for large tech companies understand they have a decision to make - live in the city proper, pay a lot more than the greater valley, use transit into work (all of the giants have regular shuttles in), but get to love a more \"\"hip\"\" life, or be more conservative in the valley, where rental prices are on par with NYC. In talking to a lot of people who work for the big companies, they know this. Younger folks who want to live the city life pay the premium, but by far and wide they live outside of it, where it is closer to work, and they take the rail up for weekends out with buddies. I'm still not sure where you are getting a doubling of the COL in the valley versus outside. Yes, housing as a single item is going to be a person's largest expense. But all the rest of their expenses are not going to see a similar increase. It's also important to remember that saving 10% of 60 v 10% of 120 is significantly different. Lots of people take jobs in the valley, are able to save vastly larger amounts of cash, and then leave. In my calculations I evaluated the COL markup to be ~30% for the valley for a 200k job. That is, I spend maybe 50k of my earning on all living expenses in the Midwest (in a downtown, nice area), and would expect I'd pay about 70k for the same standard in the valley. But I'd be saving a shitton more. I've done the math, I'm not here to argue with someone who just googled SF cost of living searching for the answers I want. I've talked to actual people out there. I appreciate your passion for this, but your 100% increase in COL estimate is simply wrong. But then again, it depends on how you live and where you live in your current situation. I live in a large midwest city, actually in the city itself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bce48e2907397d3a7870a47c5e64fbfa",
"text": "\"It sounds like you're massively under-selling yourself. You presumably have a degree to get into the PhD program, and you now have work experience as well. But you're applying for jobs in fast food restaurants. You may struggle to get a job because they will expect you to only be there a few weeks until you find a \"\"proper\"\" job.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a989f2906fb001e8c0b143cded748efe",
"text": "\"Hey just letting you know that I've sort of felt the same as you before. I'm not 29 yet, only a few years younger, and I too am in Alberta. Knowing that many trades can be quite lucrative here I too dipped my hand in them, namely the HVAC and Plumbing trades, and after a bit I felt that they weren't for me. And this was after using a year looking for any ins during the recession since nobody was hiring helpers/first years. During that whole year in the times I wasn't looking for a job I was researching and looking up videos of the trades and was thinking how INow after some career counseling, soul searching, all that jazz, I'm about to head back to school next week. If things go well by the time I graduate I will almost be 30 with my first (and probably only) degree. I wouldn't consider the years from the time I graduated high school to today, where I think I've figured out what I want to do, a waste, but instead I look at them as years where I grew as an adult and gaining real world experience in a few areas I've dabbled in. A future employer may look at them as wasted years, but it is up to me to spin them in a positive way as my \"\"story\"\". Just know that you aren't alone in this situation, and I'm sure there's plenty of people worldwide in their 20's and 30's who are still trying to figure out what they want to do. Keep your head up and good luck.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b9d833963ebb72a659c0c8ea56ce6ee5",
"text": "I would probably try to find a job back home or around school in a company doing wealth management or something financial. After your second year, leverage your first summer and aim for smaller groups in big cities that might not recruit heavily and aren't bulge or a high name boutique but still do serious finance and learn a lot. Third year, shoot for the big names and talk about your experience, that will set you a part from everyone else who likely has little finance experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e931daf61cf562edd5b4fa9bcbadbb37",
"text": "Landed an internship in undergrad through a combination of networking and just sending out resumes to lots of places with decent IR departments. Then from there I had the experience that finding a job post-grad wasn't too hard. It's a relatively small community and now that I've become basically specialized in telecom, media, and technology it's easy to know where to look. There are plenty of corporate PR firms too if that's more your angle. I really recommend you join your local NIRI chapter. Best networking move you could make, and anyone interested in IR can join. It's a super rewarding career because I love finance but I still get a lot of interpersonal interaction and you're as close to the clients as possible, even at the most entry level.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "889aa3748b5e2385e34c07d684ff5b87",
"text": "\"UCLA is not a bad place to be school wise. You will be pretty much limited to applying to the LA and possibly SF offices of any BB bank or relevant boutiques/MMs. But for those LA positions in particular, you will get a fair look. So your institution is respected. Your experience also seems to be decent, especially considering you spent time at a community college. It all matters how you market it. Be humble but don't sell yourself short. Don't claim you founded Yahoo, but also give an honest view of what you did. You can be proud of founding a distribution company and learning the business practices that go hand in hand with that. Both on your resume and in any interviews you may have, discuss how your experiences in that role will help you be a better intern and in the future a better analyst. Mostly intangibles, skills you learned, etc. The same goes for the other position, although the wealth management position probably has more applicable skills. So don't sell yourself too short in that department. Just lend an appropriate level of importance to the positions you've held; don't overstate your positions but also give yourself credit for what you've learned and what you've done. As far as your performance at UCLA so far and GPA, that might be a concern, but I think you can overcome it with enough work on your part during recruiting. I assumed your story from high school through community college and to UCLA is a fairly challenging one. It likely involved some financial hardships and a good deal of adversity. Most importantly, it probably took a lot of perseverance and hard work on your part to get to where you are now. If you can amply convey that during interviews without sounding like a martyr, you can likely overcome any downside to not having a GPA. Clearly you were able to get to UCLA from a tough starting point, which demonstrates the combination of hard work and intelligence that a GPA is meant to convey and which banks look for in applicants. Additionally, interviews occur in January so you will have one semester's worth of work to show for it by then and when interviews come around you'll be able to conjoin the story of your journey to UCLA to your first semester GPA to lend some credibility to your historical successes. Now, a lot of what I've said is contingent on you getting to an interview. Before that stage, it is hard to sell the merits of your alternative path to UCLA and to the interview on paper. You have the cover letter to make brief mention of those things, but the cover letter is far too short a medium through which to convey the entire story. So, getting yourself into the interview is the most important step you have to take at this point. Once you get your foot in the door and get a few first rounds, you'll be able to let your salesmanship shine and show them the merits of the path you've travelled. An important step of getting the interview will be networking. Everyone on here says \"\"just go network\"\" which is really vague and doesn't help anyone, especially because it is the most heinous of all collegiate finance buzzwords. You should contact specifically two groups of people: alumni working in the banks you are interested in apply for AND the bank HR representatives for your school. You ought to talk to the UCLA career services people as soon as you can and get names of UCLA graduates who work at the banks you're interested in. Career services also ought to have the names of the relevant HR representatives. Both the employees at these banks and the HR recruiters will have an important voice in who gets interviews, so make sure you talk to both of them. You should be inquisitive and ask about the bank and the experiences those you talk to have had, but you can also try to creatively weave in details about your story. I.e., when talking to someone you could bring up concerns about getting looked at because of your background and then ask whoever you're speaking with WHAT YOU CAN DO TO OVERCOME THAT. It should always be phrased as a question, so as to avoid seeming as if you're trying to sell yourself or brag during any informational calls. The purpose of the calls should be to talk about the bank and the job, so try as best you can to work in limited mention of yourself unless specifically asked and focus the discussion on the employee/recruiter and not yourself. You should also work to learn all the finance information you'll need for the job. Being that you have a nontraditional finance background and limited academic credentials, you will be asked extensive financial information questions if not during any informational calls definitely during first round interviews. Your knowledge of and commitment to a financial job is uncertain due to your academic background, so people will ask you basic to slightly more advanced financial analysis questions to see where your competency is at. Study up in the vault guide, with a particular focus on the fields you will be applying for. Understand DCF, LBO, M&A accretion-dilution, and financial statement analysis primarily (for IB internships). Learn specifics for other roles (Equity research may require more equity specific stuff, cap markets will be similar to IB as listed above, S&T will be less specific prep and more bainteasers/fast math). Prepare a stock pitch of some sort as well in case they ask you for one, and pick something obscure-ish so that it won't be too closely scrutinized. Stock pitch will come up randomly in interviews and specifically if you apply to equity research. In that same vain of thought, you should also think a bit about what group you want to apply to at these banks. Its good you have an interest in finance and in banking, but there are a lot of facets to the banking industry which you could pursue (traditional investment banking, capital markets, sales and trading, equity research, asset management, to name a few). Some are easier to wedge you way into, others harder (I have them listed in rough order of difficulty from hardest to easiest above). You can usually apply to a couple of different groups at each bank, so take advantage of that and definitely apply to multiple groups, talk to multiple groups, network with multiple groups and try to spread yourself around and get as many interviews as possible. TL;DR: you've got a decent product for sale here, but you'll need to polish up you pitch and learn financial skills to back up the story and prove you're competent and serious to an interviewers. While you do that, reach out to UCLA alumni in the banking industry and the HR recruiters for the banks to get your name in front of people and work toward securing a first round interview. Networking in this way is going to be the most important part of recruitment for you over the next 3-5 months.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "547d3a326887fa1aae51ae6d1037cb6e",
"text": "\"Generally speaking I find that jumping jobs either in-company or outside it is sometimes required for even advancing in title. When I was working at a F500 in the Portland Metro Area, people jumped around a lot. I'd say between a 1 1/2 years and 2 years was the average time someone stayed in a position before either moving around, moving out to another company, or maybe finally moving up. Lets say you were a Financial Analyst and you wanted to be a Senior Financial Analyst. Generally speaking you would need 4-5 years in to get there organically within the same org, if ever. The reality is for every single one of those Senior Financial Analyst positions there is probably 100-200 applicants including inside and outside applicants. While being an employee there was definitely a good thing, it doesn't guarantee you jack or shit. You might have worked at for 3 years, but some guy coming from Silicon Valley who is moving up North to Oregon so he can afford a house is probably going to beat you in the interview process. So that's when the other options come in. You can move around and get a new position, a new title, and the new experiences and connections that come with it. Or, you jump ship to a Senior Financial Analyst position somewhere else. The fact of the matter is applying for jobs is a giant crap shoot if you work in something that is unrelated to engineering, product creation, etc where your work can speak for you. If you have the word \"\"Analyst\"\" or \"\"Associate\"\" in your title, then career branding means more than anything else. Which job hopping gets you. Companies already expect you to leave for better opportunities. All the reasons to be loyal are dead if you aren't waiting for stock options to vest. There are no more pensions, raises are minimal if you get them at all, and if you become a burden on the Wage Expense line of the P&L they will drop you without a second thought and *maybe* a severance. Get yours and remember that a job is a job and that no matter how much they tell you otherwise, you are replaceable and when your employer looks at you they don't see value, they see a business expense.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
663405f563912e77b1f1bf32bfe82a7c
|
How do I Fundamentally Analyze this Stock so I may see if the Company is Running Well?
|
[
{
"docid": "e57000db4a48e0c6eb6ebb6c74266973",
"text": "a) Nothing would support this company going back to $.50 per share b) Fundamentally the market for this sectors has been obliterated and the fundamentals don't look like they will improve. Similar companies experience what this one is and will be going through, they borrow the hilt and hope they can pump enough oil and sell the oil at a high price. Oil goes below, WAYYY below the price they can sell it at and even break even, so they are burning cash until they declare bankruptcy. This company is not an exception. So here is what to look at on their balance sheet: assets and liabilities. Liabilities are debt. Their debt is over 50% of their assets, that debt has interest and there is NO WAY they are making a profit. Their website's last financial statement is from September 30th.. LOL, so they haven't even released a quarterly financial statement in two quarters straight, so have they released anything? Given what we know about the dire state of the entire oil drilling industry, lets see if these guys are the exception to the rule (spoiler; they aren't) February 15th, 2015 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/strategic-oil-gas-ltd-provides-operations-update-2015-02-19-16173591 The Company prudently elected to stop the winter Muskeg drilling program in order to preserve capital. So now they aren't even getting new assets to resale, they aren't making any money from that operation, their debt still has interest payments though. Approximately 700 Boe/d of production has been shut-in by suspending operations at Bistcho, Cameron Hills and Larne, which are not economic at current commodity prices. Predictable. Also, you should notice from their actual financial statements (from 6 months ago, lol) (when the price of oil was over 100% higher than it is today, lol), this company already wasn't a good performer. They have been financing themselves by doing private placements, by issuing shares to investors that are not you, and diluting the share value of ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS. Dead in the water. I got this from skimming their financial report, without even being familiar with how canadian companies report. Its just bad news. You shouldn't be married to this investment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "a3d0faea96982b5a5ffaa1971f1df44c",
"text": "No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d2f9602637702fafbaab647b023f8cb",
"text": "Company that solves no problem whatsoever, just a middle man sucking a % of the value chain. It's Netflix, without the contents, but with the ads. https://twitter.com/idontg1veafu/status/913395877250785280 The streaming service is minimal (90M revenue), while the hardware selling (which btw is non-recurring, a là gopro) is trending lower. Avoid. Watch it for a short if your broker has the shares available and it rips higher and can't make new highs. At $35 within a week, I'd probably initiate a short position",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ed8ac5cafaa4a0d9cf5ad7b74ff04938",
"text": "\"As other people have posted starting with \"\"fictional money\"\" is the best way to test a strategy, learn about the platform you are using, etc. That being said I would about how Fundamental Analysis works . Fundamental Analysis is the very basis of learning about an assets true value is priced. However in my humble opinion, I personally just stick with Index funds. In layman's terms Index Funds are essentially computer programs that buy or sell the underlying assets based on the Index they are associated with in the portion of the underlying index. Therefore you will usually be doing as good or as bad as the market. I personally have the background, education, and skillsets to build very complex models to do fundamental analysis but even I invest primarily in index funds because a well made and well researched stock model could take 8 hours or more and Modern Portfolio Theory would suggest that most investors will inevitably have a regression to the mean and have gains equal to the market rate or return over time. Which is what an index fund already does but without the hours of work and transaction cost.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "84684ca8001220b80db21a461e7b2e21",
"text": "You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b6d8cc249e33d07ba0caa1431a81429",
"text": "Rather than take anyone's word for it (including and especially mine) you need to do think very carefully about your company; you know it far better than almost anyone else. Do you feel that the company values its employees? If it values you and your immediate colleagues then its likely that it not only values its other employees but also its customers which is a sign that it will do well. Does the company have a good relationship with its customers? Since you are a software engineer using a web stack I assume that it is either a web consultancy or has an e-commerce side to it so you will have some exposure to what the customers complain about, either in terms of bugs or UX difficulties. You probably even get bug reports that tell you what customer pain points are. Are customers' concerns valid, serious and damaging? If they are then you should think twice about taking up the offer, if not then you may well be fine. Also bear in mind how much profit is made on each item of product and how many you can possibly sell - you need to be able to sell items that have been produced. Those factors indicate how the future of the company looks currently, next you need to think about why the IPO is needed. IPOs and other share offerings are generally done to raise capital for the firm so is your company raising money to invest for the future or to cover losses and cashflow shortfalls? Are you being paid on time and without issues? Do you get all of the equipment and hiring positions that you want or is money always a limiting factor? As an insider you have a better chance to analyse these things than outsiders as they effect your day-to-day work. Remember that anything in the prospectus is just marketing spiel; expecting a 4.5 - 5.3% div yield is not the same as actually paying it or guaranteeing it. Do you think that they could afford to pay it? The company is trying to sell these shares for the maximum price they can get, don't fall for the hyped up sales pitch. If you feel that all of these factors are positive then you should buy as much as you can, hopefully far more than the minimum, as it seems like the company is a strong, growing concern. If you have any concerns from thinking about these factors then you probably shouldn't buy any (unless you are getting a discount but that's a different set of considerations) as your money would be better utilized elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3877c57cc08994391fb855b9a0d73018",
"text": "Lets pretend that TELSA decided to split its stock 10 shares for 1. Now the stock is $35 dollars- would that make you happy? You dont have any idea how companies are valued. Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class A NYSE: BRK.A - Oct 31, 12:58 PM EDT 280,210.00 USD",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaf8fbb6297344fa58d97ad8831b11ca",
"text": "Having all of the numbers you posted is a start. It's what you need to perform the calculation. The final word, however, comes from the company itself, who are required to issue a determination on how the spin-off is valued. Say a company is split into two. Instead of some number of shares of each new company, imagine for this example it's one for one. i.e. One share of company A becomes a share each in company B and company C. This tell us nothing about relative valuation, right? Was B worth 1/2 of the original company A, or some other fraction? Say it is exactly a 50/50 split. Company A releases a statement that B and C each should have 1/2 the cost basis of your original A shares. Now, B and C may very well trade ahead of the stock splitting, as 'when issued' shares. At no point in time will B and C necessarily trade at exactly the same price, and the day that B and C are officially trading, with no more A shares, they may have already diverged in price. That is, there's nothing you can pull from the trading data to identify that the basis should have been assigned as 50% to each new share. This is my very long-winded was of explaining that the company must issue a notice through your broker, and on their investor section of their web site, to spell out the way you should assign your basis to each new stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9fbbddf99ada47cb3317b4673d6b8ca",
"text": "This is fine, but I'd probably spend a moment introducing WACC and it's estimation. It's also useful to link up the enterprise value to share price, so just also mentioning the debt subtraction to get equity value and division by shares for price. Keep in mind you're usually given like a minute to answer this, so you can afford to be a bit more detailed in some parts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "61de25b75f779fd3addc7f1515b344a4",
"text": "\"Though you're looking to repeat this review with multiple securities and events at different times, I've taken liberty in assuming you are not looking to conduct backtests with hundreds of events. I've answered below assuming it's an ad hoc review for a single event pertaining to one security. Had the event occurred more recently, your full-service broker could often get it for you for free. Even some discount brokers will offer it so. If the stock and its options were actively traded, you can request \"\"time and sales,\"\" or \"\"TNS,\"\" data for the dates you have in mind. If not active, then request \"\"time and quotes,\"\" or \"\"TNQ\"\" data. If the event happened long ago, as seems to be the case, then your choices become much more limited and possibly costly. Below are some suggestions: Wall Street Journal and Investors' Business Daily print copies have daily stock options trading data. They are best for trading data on actively traded options. Since the event sounds like it was a major one for the company, it may have been actively traded that day and hence reported in the papers' listings. Some of the print pages have been digitized; otherwise you'll need to review the archived printed copies. Bloomberg has these data and access to them will depend on whether the account you use has that particular subscription. I've used it to get detailed equity trading data on defunct and delisted companies on specific dates and times and for and futures trading data. If you don't have personal access to Bloomberg, as many do not, you can try to request access from a public, commercial or business school library. The stock options exchanges sell their data; some strictly to resellers and others to anyone willing to pay. If you know which exchange(s) the options traded on, you can contact the exchange's market data services department and request TNS and / or TNQ data and a list of resellers, as the resellers may be cheaper for single queries.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec14f4358a06c2dbf1c8f219be066d66",
"text": "It's been traded publicly for only about a month. I wouldn't put much credence in a P/E ratio just yet because it hasn't had to report anything like a grown-up publicly traded company yet.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e29cffd92873ce7bd0d57d81102cb04",
"text": "You need to do a few things to analyze your results. First, look at the timing of the deposits, and try to confirm the return you state. If it's still as high as you think, can you attribute it to one lucky stock purchase? I have an account that's up 863% from 1998 till 2013. Am I a genius? Hardly. That account, one of many, happened to have stocks that really outperformed, Apple among them. If you are that good, a career change may be in order. Few are that good. Joe",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6ccdf4de95322365d42b60b0d8817169",
"text": "\"The following is only an overview and does not contain all of the in-depth reasons why you should look more deeply. When you look at a stock's financials in depth you are looking for warning signs. These may warn of many things but one important thing to look for is ratio and growth rate manipulation. Using several different accounting methods it is possible to make a final report reflect a PE ratio (or any other ratio) that is inconsistent with the realities of the company's position. Earnings manipulation (in the way that Enron in particular manipulated them) is more widespread than you might think as \"\"earnings smoothing\"\" is a common way of keeping earnings in line (or smooth) in a recession or a boom. The reason that PE ratio looks so good could well be because professional investors have avoided the stock as there appear to be \"\"interesting\"\" (but legal) accounting decisions that are of concern. Another issue that you don't consider is growth. earnings may look good in the current reporting period but may have been stagnant or falling when considered over multiple periods. The low price may indicate falling revenues, earnings and market share that you would not be aware of when taking only your criteria into account. Understanding a firm will also give you an insight into how future news might affect the company. If the company has a lot of debt and market interest rates rise or fall how will that effect their debt, if another company brings out a competing product next week how will it effect the company? How will it effect their bottom line? How much do they rely on a single product line? How likely is it that their flagship product will become obsolete? How would that effect the company? Looking deeply into a company's financial statements will allow you to see any issues in their accounting practices and give you a feel for how they are preforming over time, it will also let you look into their cost of capital and investment decisions. Looking deeply into their products, company structure and how news will effect them will give you an understanding of potential issues that could threaten your investment before they occur. When looking for value you shouldn't just look at part of the value of the company; you wouldn't just look at sales of a single T-shirt range at Wallmart when deciding whether to invest in them. It is exactly the same argument for why you should look at the whole of the company's state when choosing to invest rather than a few small metrics.\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "c373a9ff29b5f16a5563824d77021583",
"text": "\"Yes, in my humble opinion, it can be \"\"safe\"\" to assume that — but not in the sense that your assumption is necessarily or likely correct. Rather, it can be \"\"safe\"\" in the respect that assuming the worst — even if wrong! — could save you from a likely painful and unsuccessful speculation in the highly volatile stock of a tiny company with no revenue, no profits, next to no assets, and continued challenges to its existence: \"\"There is material uncertainty about whether the Company will be able to obtain the required financing. This material uncertainty casts significant doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.\"\" As a penny stock, they are in good company. Still, there are a variety of other reasons why such a stock might have gone up, or down, and no one [here] can say for sure. Even if there was a news item, any price reaction to news could just amount to speculation on the part of others having enough money to move the stock. There are better investments out there, and cheaper thrills, than most penny stocks.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "78b19eb243043dbe16e8163ab328b6ff",
"text": "Really not sure with this one and I don't want to cheat and look up an answer. I'd say you could find the high/low points of the stock over the last year or two and see how large the spread is between those values and the average price of the stock over the same time period.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ec068fec8bc17bbf8aa660e121df98bb
|
How should we prioritize retirement savings, paying down debt, and saving for a house?
|
[
{
"docid": "1313281ff8064d868e5ab7c3094bc434",
"text": "It all depends on your priorities, but if it were me I'd work to get rid of that debt as your first priority based on a few factors: I might shift towards the house if you think you can save enough to avoid PMI, as the total savings would probably be more in aggregate if you plan on buying a house anyway with less than 20% down. Of course, all this is lower priority than funding your retirement at least up to the tax advantaged and/or employer matched maximums, but it sounds like you have that covered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a680a9f0d4f37de93b4c4e4fec815b22",
"text": "\"The advice to pay off near-7% debt is tough to argue against. That said, I'd project out a few years to understand the home purchase. Will you plan for the 20% down John recommends? The Crazy Truth about PMI can't be ignored. The way the math works, if you put 15% down, the PMI costs you so much, it's nearly like paying 20% interest on that missing 5%. If your answer is that you intend to save for the full downpayment, 20%, and can still knock off the student loan, by all means, go for it. I have to question the validity of \"\"we will definitely be in a higher tax bracket when we retire.\"\" By definition, pretax deposits save tax at the marginal rate. i.e. If you are in the 25% bracket, a $1000 deposit saves you $250 in tax that year. But, withdrawals come at your average rate, i.e. your tax bill divided by gross income. There's the deductions for itemized deductions or the standard. Then 2 exemptions if you are married. Then the 10% bracket, etc. Today, a couple grossing $100K may be in the 25% bracket, but their average rate is 12%. I read this Q&A again and would add one more observation - Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote in response to a friend's similar question. With the OP having plan to buy a house, paying off the loan may be more costly in the long run. It may keep him from qualifying for the size mortgage he needs, or from having enough money to put 20% down, as I noted earlier. With finance, there are very few issues that are simply black and white. It's important to understand all aspects of one's finances to make any decision. Even if thee faster payoff is the right thing, it's not a slam-dunk, the other points should be considered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee10db3ab7421f5f45ef236bbcbc1dfd",
"text": "Pay the debt down. Any kind of debt equals risk. No debt equals no risk and a better chance to have that money earn you income down the road once it's invested. That and you will sleep so much better knowing you have ZERO debt. You 6 month emergency fund is probably good. Remember to keep it at 6 months living expenses (restaurants don't count as living expenses).",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "bb3354b81bc79cefbe6827a25a4df682",
"text": "\"Unquestionably I think the priority should be funding retirement through ROTH/IRA/401K over HSA extra. Obviously you need to fund your HSA for reasonable and expected medical expenses. Also there is some floor to your more traditional retirement funding. Beyond that what does one do with excess dollars? Given the lack of flexibility and fees, it seems clear to do ROTH IRA and 401K. Beyond that what then? You may want to decide to \"\"take some money home\"\" and pay taxes on it. Do you have a desire to own rental property or start/purchase a business? Upgrade your home? etc... If all those things are taken care of, only then would I put money into an HSA. YMMV but most people, maxing a ROTH IRA alone, will have plenty of money for retirement given a reasonable rate of return.\"",
"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": "af0b1df1287ed9403409abff8d5d9e1c",
"text": "Wow! First, congratulations! You are both making great money. You should be able to reach your goals. Are we on the right track ? Are we doing any mistakes which we could have avoided ? Please advice if there is something that we should focus more into ! I would prioritize as follows: Get on the same page. My first red flag is that you are listing your assets separately. You and your wife own property together and are raising your daughter together. The first thing is to both be on the same page with your combined income and assets. This is critical. Set specific goals for the future. Dreaming and big-picture life planning will be the foundation for building a detailed plan for reaching your goals. You will see more progress with more sacrifice. If you both are not equally excited about the goals, you will not both be equally willing to sacrifice lifestyle now. You have the income now to be able to set yourselves up to do whatever you want in 10 years, if you can agree on what you want. Hire a financial planner you trust. Interview people, ask someone who is where you want to be in 10 years. You need someone with experience that can guide you through these questions and understands how to manage your income stream. Start saving for retirement in tax-advantaged accounts. This should be as much as 10%-15% of your income combined, so $30k-$45k per year. You need to start diversifying your investments. Real estate is great, but I would never recommend it as this large a percentage of net worth. Start saving for your child's education. Hard to say what you need here, since I don't know your goals. A financial planner should assist you with this. Get rid of your debt. Out of your $2.1M of rental real estate and land, you have $1.4M of debt. It will be difficult to start a business with that much additional debt. It will also put stress on your retirement that you don't need. You are taking on lots of risk here. I would sell all but maybe one of the properties and let it cash flow. This will free up cash to start investing for retirement or future business too. Buy more rental in the future with cash only. You have plenty of income to do it this way, and you will be setting yourself up for a great future. At this point you can continue to pile funds into any/all your investments, with the goal of using the funds to start a business or to live on. If all your investments are tied up in real estate, you wont have anything to draw on if needed for a business opportunity. You need to weigh this out in your goal and planning. What should we do to prepare for a comfortable retirement and safety You cannot plan for or see all scenarios. However, good planning will give you more options and more choices. Investing driven by fear will set you up for failure. Spend less than you make. Be patient. Be generous. Cheers!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dd669d41dae2b13de2963af30ee98d2",
"text": "\"First, I would recommend getting rid of this ridiculous debt, or remember this day and this answer, \"\"you will be living this way for many years to come and maybe worse, no/not enough retirement\"\". Hold off on any retirement savings right now so that the money can be used to crush this debt. Without knowing all of your specifics (health insurance deductions, etc.) and without any retirement contribution, given $190,000 you should probably be taking home around $12,000 per month total. Assuming a $2,000 mortgage payment (30 year term), that is $10,000 left per month. If you were serious about paying this off, you could easily live off of $3,000 per month (probably less) and have $7,000 left to throw at the student loan debt. This assumes that you haven't financed automobiles, especially expensive ones or have other significant debt payments. That's around 3 years until the entire $300,000 is paid! I have personally used and endorse the snowball method (pay off smallest to largest regardless of interest rate), though I did adjust it slightly to pay off some debts first that had a very high monthly payment so that I would then have this large payment to throw at the next debt. After the debt is gone, you now have the extra $7,000 per month (probably more if you get raises, bonuses etc.) to enjoy and start saving for retirement and kid's college. You may have 20-25 years to save for retirement; at $4,000 per month that's $1 million in just savings, not including the growth (with moderate growth this could easily double or more). You'll also have about 14 years to save for college for this one kid; at $1,500 per month that's $250,000 (not including investment growth). This is probably overkill for one kid, so adjust accordingly. Then there's at least $1,500 per month left to pay off the mortgage in less than half the time of the original term! So in this scenario, conservatively you might have: Obviously I don't know your financials or circumstances, so build a good budget and play with the numbers. If you sacrifice for a short time you'll be way better off, trust me from experience. As a side note: Assuming the loan debt is 50/50 you and your husband, you made a good investment and he made a poor one. Unless he is a public defender or charity attorney, why is he making $60,000 when you are both attorneys and both have huge student loan debt? If it were me, I would consider a job change. At least until the debt was cleaned up. If he can make $100,000 to $130,000 or more, then your debt may be gone in under 2 years! Then he can go back to the charity gig.\"",
"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": "1112b5f5bd959c156ff76598295e31ec",
"text": "Debt will ruin any plans. I guess that the interest on the credit cards is about $450 a month or about $5,500 per year and the school loans is about $6,000 a year. Get a an Excel spread sheet going and start tracking your expensed. Learn to make a amortization spread sheet for all debts, and any future debts that you are thinking about. If you want a family soon plan on one income for a period of time. If you buy a house plan on paying it off while you are working. Then the house payment becomes spendable money during retirement. A cheaper house can be upgraded in the right neighborhood with an excellent appreciation in value. Money put into excellent collectibles and kept for 20 years or more is private and off the radar income no taxes when sold. STUDY STUDY LEARN LEARN",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d5621331f74f236d8df4739c497937e",
"text": "Answers to this your question break down along a few lines regarding opportunity costs of tying up a significant chunk of your salary and assets in one piece of property, as opposed to other things you'd like to do with your life. The 30 year standard mortgage was invented in the 30's as part of FDR's new deal to make housing affordable to more people, while relieving the strain on the market of foreclosed homes from ~10 year interest only balloon mortgages (sound familiar?). The 30 year term tends to follow the career of the average American of that era, allowing them to pay the house off and live out the remainder of their lives there at a lower cost. Houses are depreciating assets because they wear out over time. Their greatest investment value is a place to live. The appreciation on a home comes from the real estate it sits on and the community the property is located in. Value is determined by desirability of the house and community in their current state, and the supply of property in the area. This value can only be extracted when you sell the home. This partially answers your last question noting that you shouldn't buy a really expensive building for investment value. We've learned in recent years that there are no long term guarantees of property value either, because land and communities can decrease in value due to unemployment, over supply, crime, pollution, etc. Only buy as much home as you will need in the next decade or so, in a place that you will like living over that time period, and don't consider it much of an investment. I will tell you to get a fifteen year fixed rate mortgage since it's readily available at lower rates and has a significantly lower total purchase price than the standard 30 years. The monthly payment difference isn't that great, and anyone who looks at the monthly payment as opposed to the total costs, your priorities and the opportunity costs shouldn't be trusted for financial advice. I don't like debt. There are psychological benefits to being free from the bondage and drain of a long term mortgage on your finances. The biggest argument for paying off your home quickly is freedom to pursue other desires with all of your salary and the assets you have available to you. Some financial advisers will tell you to keep your mortgage costs under 25% of your income, so that you can actually live off the money you make. I would also recommend paying at least enough into your 401k to get the company match and fully funding your Roth IRA. I'd also have an emergency fund to cover at least 6 months of expenses, including this mortgage in case you lose your job. A 15 or 20 year mortgage will give you breathing room to take care of these other priorities, and you can overpay on almost any mortgage to decrease the principal and finish in a shorter time period (make sure to get a mortgage that allows prepayment) . More financially savvy people may tell you to take the 30 year mortgage and invest the difference. Especially with mortgage rates around 4%, this is a very cheap way to increase your purchasing power and total assets. Most people lack the investment prowess and self discipline to make this plan pay off. There are even fewer guarantees regarding markets and investments than property. This also is a way of diversifying your total assets to protect against loss of value in your home. This approach has backfired for thousands of people who are underwater on their homes. This problem is often compounded by job loss forcing you to move, or increasing your commute, making your home less desirable for you. Some people will tell you to maintain the mortgage for the tax credit. This fails a basic math test since you only get about a quarter of the money (depending on your tax rate) that you are paying in interest back from the government. The rest of the money goes to bank at no gain to you. This approach is basically a taxpayer subsidized decrease of your 4% interest payment to a 3% interest payment (assuming you have ~ $5000 in other deductions), and only pays off if you can successfully invest the money at a rate somewhat greater than 3%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e2ae1307e47b1d6f0b007f2af9a1eef",
"text": "\"Getting a mortgage for the interest write-off is like buying packs of baseball cards for the gum. That said, I'd refer you to The correct order of investing as much of that question really overlaps with this. This question boils down to priorities, the best use of the funds. There are those who suggest that a mortgage brings risk. Of course it does, just not for the borrower, the risk is borne by the lender. Risk comes from lack of liquidity. Say your girlfriend buys the house with cash, and leaves little reserve. She loses her job, and it's great that she has no mortgage. But she does have every other cost life brings, including a tax bill that can turn into a house getting foreclosed on. The details that you didn't disclose are those needed to look at the rest of the \"\"priorities\"\" list. A fully funded 401(k) with appropriate balance, and no other debt? And a 1 year emergency fund? I wouldn't argue against buying the house with cash. No real savings and passing on the 401(k) matched deposit? I'd think carefully about the longterm impact of the cash purchase.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40b175d270c74eeb9e2496161fcc45ec",
"text": "\"In my opinion, you should pay off the student loans as soon as possible, before you start saving for the house downpayment. $26k is a big number, but you have a great salary. (Nice!) Up until now, you have been a poor college student, accustomed to a relatively low standard of living. Your $800 per month plan would have you pay off the loan in 3 years, but I would challenge you to pay off this entire student loan in 1 year or less. A monthly loan payment of $2226 will pay off your loan in 12 months. After that is done, if you take the same amount you had been paying toward your student loans and save it for your condo, in less than two years you'll have a 10% down payment saved ($50k). The whole thing will take less than three years. There are three reasons why I recommend paying off the loan first before saving for the condo: one is practical and two are philosophical. Practical: You will save money on interest. Paying off the loan in 1 year vs. 3 years will save you $1343. You won't find a short-term safe investment that will beat 5% in interest. Philosophical: The loan is something current and concrete that you can focus on. Your condo is a dream at this point, and there is lots of time to change your mind. If the $2k+ per month amount is at all a sacrifice for you, then in a few months, you might be tempted to say to yourself, \"\"This month I really want a vacation, so I'll just skip this month of saving.\"\" For the loan, however, if you establish a concrete goal of 12 months to pay off the loan, it will hopefully help motivate you to allocate this money and stick to your plan. Philosophical: Getting used to borrowing money, making payments to a bank, and paying interest is not a great way to live. It is better, in my opinion, to eliminate your debt as fast as possible and start getting accustomed to saving cash for what you want. Clean up your debt, and resolve not to borrow any more money except for a reasonably-sized mortgage on your home.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4247fc4bd8436e1a1c0b69754b86c1ff",
"text": "One big factor that no one has mentioned yet is whether you believe in a deflationary or inflationary future. Right now, we are leaning towards a deflationary environment so it makes sense to pay off more of the debt. (If you make just one extra payment a year, you will have paid off your house 7 years early). However, should this change (depending on government and central bank policy) you may be better off putting down the very minimum. In a year or three from now, you should have a clearer picture. In the meanwhile, here is a recent Business Week article discussing both sides of the argument. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_28/b4186004424615.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b64a9f85765c40910ce7fa1ede9fb4d",
"text": "The fact that you want to look for a home within the next 2 years (and the lack of 401(k) match) leads me to suggest saving for the house as top priority. A VA loan for that purchase. The VA loan has a very low up front fee, but a new home is always going to come with expenses that can add up. Better to have as much liquidity as you can. If you have a lot of cash after the move in and furnishings, it won't be tough to choose a high savings rate to jump start the retirement plan. Thank you for your service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d876f197307f19a332997d142724829",
"text": "You say A #1 priority, that implies multiple #1 priorities. Long term or medium term my goal is to pay off the mortgage. But short term paying off the mortgage isn't a concern. Some people are comfortable with a mortgage during retirement, others aren't. When I was younger the mortgage concern was not being overextended. I didn't want to be in a situation that dictated my financial decisions because I needed to make a big house payment. Being overextended is no longer a concern for me. Now I am looking in more detail about how my retirement will actually play out. How to handle my actual retirement income sources. For me, not having a mortgage simplifies my planning.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d53b38ba7630a757116be108950c63a",
"text": "I would definitely pay down the debt first. If it is going to take 15 years to do so, you probably need to allocate more money to paying down debt. Cut expenses by going out to eat less, and keeping spending to the bare necessities. You might even consider getting a second job, just for paying down the debt. If that isn't enough, consider selling off some assets. You should be able to come up with a plan to be debt free (excluding maybe a regular mortgage) within 3-5 years. Once the only debt you have is a home mortgage, then its time to look at putting money towards retirement again. Note, you should not take money out of a 401k or IRA to pay off debt. The costs for doing so are nearly always too great.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7cb850e4b3a69b8ba068c19cf2fc4a80",
"text": "\"One thing that's often overlooked is that cash reserves are also a long-term investment. Anything can be a long-term investment if it's expected to appreciate or pay interest/dividends. So it's not either/or. Stocks are but one way to do long-term investments. Having said that, taking on less debt for a consumer good is never a bad idea. Your primary residence is a consumer good, regardless of those who would say that \"\"your home is your biggest investment.\"\" So, there's my vote for a larger down-payment. Beyond that, a couple of outside-the-box comments:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac",
"text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3512fff1d14c0433e36b8e9e3e254541
|
How is your credit score related to credit utilization?
|
[
{
"docid": "e7baa086fac795c43103f9468d266822",
"text": "\"1 - yes, it's fine to pay in full and it helps your score. 2 - see chart above, it's calculated based on what the bill shows each month. 3 - answered by chart. 1-19% utilization is ideal. 0% is actually worse than 41-60% Note: The above image was from Credit Karma. A slightly different image appears at the article The Relationship Between Your Credit Score and Credit Card Utilization Rate. I don't know how true this really is. Since writing this answer, I've seen offers of a true \"\"FICO score\"\" from multiple credit cards, and have tinkered with my utilization. I paid my active cards before the reporting date, and saw 845-850 once my utilization hit 0. Credit Karma still has me at 800.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "71d7c84f33ce6f9b843b95061714b159",
"text": "\"Curious, why are you interested in building/improving your credit score? Is it better to use your card and pay off the bill completely every month? Yes. How is credit utiltization calculated? Is it average utilization over the month, or total amount owed/credit_limit per month? It depends on how often your bank reports your balances to the reporting agencies. It can be daily, when your statement cycle closes, or some other interval. How does credit utilization affect your score? Closest to zero without actually being zero is best. This translates to making some charges, even $1 so your statement shows a balance each statement that you pay off. This shows as active use. If you pay off your balance before the statement closes, then it can sometimes be reported as inactive/unused. Is too much a bad thing? Yes. Is too little a bad thing? Depends. Being debt free has its advantages... but if your goal is to raise your credit score, then having a low utilization rate is a good metric. Less than 7% utilization seems to be the optimal level. \"\"Last year we started using a number, not as a recommendation, but as a fact that most of the people with really high FICO scores have credit utilization rates that are 7 percent or lower,\"\" Watts said. Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/how-to-bump-up-your-credit-score.aspx Remember that on-time payment is the most important factor. Second is how much you owe. Third is length of credit history. Maintain these factors in good standing and you will improve your score: http://www.myfico.com/CreditEducation/WhatsInYourScore.aspx\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c266d9796adb77a13575342646c77fc7",
"text": "This very much depends how you use that second line of credit and what your current credit is. There are of course many more combinations buy you can probably infer the impact based on these cases. Your credit score is based on your likely hood of being profitable to a creditor should they issue you credit. This is based on your history of your ability to manage your credit. Having more credit and managing it well shows that you have a history of being responsible with greater sums of money available. If you use the card responsibly now then you are more likely to continue that trend than someone with a history of irresponsibility. Having a line but not using it is not a good thing. It costs the creditor money for you to have an account. If you never use that account then you are not showing that you can use the account responsibly so if you are just going to throw the card in a safe and never access it then you are better off not getting the card in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3fc85dd71f3a47adf539ee2ef8c1ebd",
"text": "\"First I want to be sure Op understands how \"\"Credit Utilization\"\" is scored as this confuses many folks here in the US. There is no \"\"reward\"\" for charging money or carrying balances, only penalty. If you have one credit card with a $10,000 limit and owe $8,000 you have an 80% utilization which will signal to banks that you are having financial difficulties. (Anything over 30% on a single card is usually penalized significantly.) The ideal utilization is something around 0, which is in the ballpark of the 5% Op mentioned. Again there is never any direct benefit to your credit of spending a penny on any of your credit cards.* Banks offer the best rates to people that pay off their balances each month or don't use their cards in the first place. Why? Despite the system being imperfect in many ways, utilization is a good indicator. Example: If you have a card with a $10,000 limit and pay it off every month that speaks to you being a good risk. If you compared this person to the person above, who do you think would be the most likely to pay back a car loan? Finally, Utilization is a small part of the credit score. I would call it more of a \"\"hurdle\"\" than a factor, at least concerning good rates and approvals. Most of your credit, is based on length of history, paying on time, and having multiple types of credit. Real life example: I had a relative that had perfect payment history for decades. They got divorced and started accumulating a balance. The person got other cards with 0% apr to avoid the interest, but their balance only grew. -They had to use the card to make ends meet, etc. (3 kids, single parent) They ended up filing a sizable bankruptcy a few years later. This was one of the most responsible people I've ever known. (Yes that statement will seem far fetched to someone else. It was almost impossible to get them to file bankruptcy, even though there was no way to ever pay the money back.) The point? Utilization shows a more 'current' picture than some of the other portions due. - Had those banks used the high utilization as a warning sign they would have saved a lot of money. A 'fun' way of looking at credit: Sometimes I describe credit score as a popularity contest. If you really 'need' money banks are not going to help you. However if your credit shows everyone is lining up to loan you money, other banks are going to want in too. \"\"Banks only make loans to people that don't need them.\"\" *** Spending a lot on Credit Cards does sometimes have the indirect effect of getting balance increases that could have a slight increase in your score. This happens less than it did prior to the financial fiasco. Also the effect of this is on the score negligible unless carrying a balance. ( And the person carrying a balance also has a lower score anyways.) Additionally someone charging less could probably get a similar raise if they asked for it. (Raises vary greatly by issuer.))\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec9e45be1741b1a7422e93d3c91707e0",
"text": "Your credit score, for better or worse, is increasingly about more than just getting loans. For example insurance companies can use it to some extent to determine your rates,.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "088bc40143b1fd1c3a082150fd2b9a91",
"text": "Credit cards are meant to be used so generally it doesn't hurt your credit score to use them. To top it off you even get an interest grace period so you don't have to rush home and pay balances as soon as they're charged. In general you accrue charges during your statement period, we'll call it September 1 through September 30. The statement due date is something like 20 days after the close of the statement period, so we'll call it October 20. As long as you habitually pay your entire statement balance by the due date you will never pay interest. You charge your laptop on September 3, it shows up on your statement as $1,300, you pay $1,300 on October 18, you pay no interest. However, if you pay $1,000 on October 18 leaving a $300 balance to be carried in to the next statement period (a carried balance) you will pay interest. Generally interest is calculated based on your average daily balance during the statement period, which is now be the October 1 to October 31 period. You'll notice that you didn't pay anything until the October 18, that means the entire $1,300 will be included in your average daily balance up to the 18th of the month. Add to that, anything else you charge on the card now will be included in your average daily balance for interest charge calculation purposes. The moral of the story is, use your card, and pay your entire statement balance before the due date. Now how much will this impact your credit score? It's tough to say. Utilization is not a bad thing until it's a big number. I've read that 70% utilization and over is really the point at which lenders will raise an eyebrow and under 30% is considered excellent. If you have one card and $1,300 is a significant portion of your available limit, then yes you should probably pay it down quickly. Spend six or so months using the card and paying it, then call your bank and ask for a credit line increase.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afb354dbf0db4b576653e9d344a89438",
"text": "Assuming you are asking about a credit score in the United States, the following applies. To find out your FICO score, navigate to AnnualCreditReport, the official site to help consumers receive their credit report from each of the three organizations providing these scores - Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. You are - in many states - entitled to a free copy of your credit report from each of these organizations annually. This copy of your credit report will not contain your credit score from that organization. It will, however, contain information that goes into your credit score - the lines of credits on file, any delinquencies reported, etc. If you decide you would like to pay for your credit score from each bureau, you will have the option to receive this information while getting your credit report, but you will have to pay a nominal fee for it. Remember that each of the 3 bureaus gives you a different score. Averaging your 3 scores should give you a good idea of your FICO score. Note that your report is far more important than your score - once you know that, you know if you're in a good place or not. These other questions are so close that they might even be considered duplicates, and provide other suggestions for how to check your score. As a warning, don't trust the many ads out there saying you can get your score for free. Only AnnualCreditReport is considered a safe place for entering the very personal information required to get a score. The FTC backs this up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "db25039b91daf5ce2a415557ae7325dc",
"text": "\"Having no utilization makes you an outlier, it's an unusual circumstance for most people, and the scoring model cannot make any predictions based on it. If you think of it from the underwriter's perspective, zero utilization could mean all sorts of things... are you dead? indigent? unable to work? When you buying a product (like money or insurance) whose pricing is based on risk, being \"\"weird\"\" will usually make you a higher risk. That said, it isn't the end of the world. If you are in this situation, I wouldn't lose sleep over it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "846896e5f9c9e12678aa7d4b49272755",
"text": "Credit scores have a huge financial impact on consumers, even though most people don’t know how they are calculated or which bad habits may be driving theirs down. Your credit score is a number on a scale of 300 to 900 that can affect all of your financial decisions, from shopping for groceries to applying for a mortgage. Read on to find out why a good credit rating is so important. 4 Things to Know About Your Credit Score Why it’s important. Throughout your life, you will probably rely on your credit to acquire the items that you want and need but can’t necessarily pay cash for. Each time you buy something on credit, merchants are taking a gamble on you; the bet is",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aad61ddbccad0f0214ba83c1748470d",
"text": "IIRC it's not a FICO score, as mentioned here, too. That said, apart from borrowing money to optimise your credit score as a hobby, my understanding is that once you're above a FICO score of 750, it pretty much doesn't matter how close to 800 you get.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36ddc2dc68b1162f8dc928fe970e3625",
"text": "Absolutely. It's the way credit is calculated. The most important things here are credit utilization (how much of your open credit you're using, the less the better for your score) and and length of open credit. The longer you've had a credit card, the more it helps your score. If you use your card and pay it off before the bill comes, the credit card company still knows you're using the card and won't close it. I recommend you download credit karma so you can track your score and learn more about how credit is calculated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6d7f1a65634009ecfd05aca99690e15",
"text": "\"Credit Scores / Rates are based on sometimes simple and sometimes quite complex Statistical Models (Generalised Linear Models, Neural Networks, Regression and Classification Trees, Mixture Models, etc).This depends on whether it is something more general like FICO or what large banks develop in-house. In any case, there are many legislation-dependent factors (Qualitative such as education, occupation security, sex, etc, payment history; or Quantitative such as age, liquidity and leverage ratios, etc). Now, most model that are used today are propriety and closely held trade secrets. The most important reason for this is actually because of the databases that feed the models. More better quality data is what makes the real difference ... although at the cutting-edge, the mathematicians/statisticians/computer scientists that design the algorithms will make a huge difference. Now, back to the main thing: The Credit Score/Rate is meant to be used only as an indicator for representing the Probability of Default (\"\"How likely you are to default on your obligation towards me?\"\" is what it means and that is largely based upon \"\"Has company/he/she honoured his financial obligations?\"\") of a certain consumer. In more sophisticated models, they may also use your industry sector or occupational and financial security to predict the future behaviour. However, this \"\"Credit Score\"\" has meaning only in relation to a \"\"Credit Limit\"\" (\"\"Can you pay back my $X?\"\"). The credit limit on the other hand is defined by your income level, debt/asset, etc). As a credit risk analyst, whether we are dealing with large corporate loans, mortgages, personal loans, etc), the principles are the same: One thing to consider is that factors considered in determining a credit score usually do not have a simple linear relationship. Consumer Profile types such as utilisation rate are a lot more about EFFECT than CAUSE: The most important thing is to honour your obligations, whether you pay before or after you spend makes little difference, so long as you pay in full and prior to maturity, your rate/score will improve with time. Financial Institutions have many ways to make money of everyone. Some, such as interest rates and fees are directly charged to you and some are charged to your goods-and-services providers. That has no bearing on your score. Sometimes it even makes sense to take on customers with rock-bottom ratings, lend them lots of money, and charge them to dirt. As you may well know, the recent financial crisis - with ongoing after-shocks and tremors - was the result of such practices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "73ba8044033fd37ec2ffc71db5176a75",
"text": "I guess we opt in when we take out credit, or if you sign a lease or anything like that. While credit reporting is the backbone of consumer finance, im not sure exactly how it works, and this may not be the right sub. r/personalfinance may be better. If you get a good answer elsewhere I would be much obliged if you posted it back here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa0b4a937bebc51fe2f72ca4f027888b",
"text": "I think you got the message mixed up a little: Racking up big balances can hurt your scores, regardless of whether you pay your bills in full each month. What's typically reported to the credit bureaus, and thus calculated into your scores, are the balances reported on your last statements. (That doesn't mean paying off your balances each month isn't financially smart -- it is -- just that the credit scores don't care.) You typically can increase your scores by limiting your charges to 30% or less of a card's limit. -- from 7 Ways to Fix Your Credit Score In other words, ALWAYS pay off your balance if you can. But don't fill up your card to the max of your credit limit each month. i.e. if your credit limit is $5000, only spend $2000 each month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0fe93ecef350ffcd97c0ca5b495f97f",
"text": "MrChrister's answer is just plain wrong. Your history of carrying debt or paying interest has nothing to do with your credit score. The biggest factors are payment history, debt to available credit ratio and length of credit history. If you have active credit accounts for 5 years, have 10-15k in limits on credit cards and put gas and groceries on a credit card that is paid in full each month, you'll have a top notch credit rating. There is no way to tell from a credit report whether you carry a balance for pay in full. Anyone who gets into debt to improve a credit score is ignorant of the process. If you have bad credit, here's how you improve it:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04825d1b5ed5d5072cccdf9a45c52fc0",
"text": "If you want to stay in the sub 30% range to avoid 'high utilization' on your card, make sure your credit is > 3.33x your usage. For your numbers, a 2500 limit would probably keep you out of 'high utilization'. The primary reason to do this is to stay off your lender's 'high risk' list. Due to the risk perceived by CCC's, accounts with greater than 30% utilization are reported as high utilization. Keep in mind that utilization does not have a history. So you can drop your utilization a couple of billing cycles before you apply for a high cost item (e.g. car or house) and your score should bump up a bit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d7736255f034e29a930b7eab8d3047c",
"text": "\"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them. Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of \"\"buying in\"\" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return. So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart. After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
44488ba1b52d0f86597573aa62ba99ed
|
Disputing Items to Improve Credit Report
|
[
{
"docid": "c2450a67c4c8bb535c58af429aeeb4da",
"text": "Disputing the remark seems unlikely to move your score, since it is just that -- a remark. It's hard to say whether the scoring models can/do read the remarks and incorporate them (somehow) into the scoring metric itself. Disputing the revolving account that should be reported as closed is a different matter. The question there would be what the status of that account is/was. In other words, is it showing as an open collection or some other status which would indicate the creditor still has a pending claim? If so, disputing it might have some effect, although nobody would be able to tell you for certain or even how much your score might be affected. If, as you say, that account should have been part of the bankruptcy package then getting that corrected could be important enough to achieve what you're looking for. You can try it and see, but even if the effect is minor, you still want your credit report to be a true reflection of the facts. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a2e632d1a1fe51ea8b374d323d981d1",
"text": "\"A few points: The reason your lender is asking you to be above 580 is because that is the magic number for an FHA loan where your down payment would be only 3.5% (the US Government effectively subsidizes the rest of your down pmt). If you had a score lower than that (but still above 500), you will need to put 10% down which is still less than the typical 20% down pmt that many of us make. It's not that you can't get a loan with a score < 580. It's that you don't qualify for the \"\"maximum financing\"\" thru FHA. You should do some research and decide if you even want an FHA loan. And keep in mind, you will throw away some money every month towards PMI (mortgage insurance) if you do FHA. Many insist on 20% down pmt to avoid that. How exactly these two items will effect your score is another question. It's possible that having accounts added back as revolving accounts could negatively / not positively effect it. It will likely effect it in some way and I'm not 100% which way or if it would be very significant. You may want to dispute both of those items regardless if you can't afford anything but an FHA loan. If that's the case, then you may have nothing to lose. You might also want to shop around for mortgage lenders. And look for a \"\"portfolio lender.\"\" These type of lenders general have more flexibility in who they can lend to and the type of loans.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "faf24c20508fc14ee7b7220428afd0ce",
"text": "It costs money to pull credit information, and there's a record of who requested the info. And hard pulls are only a temporary, short-term ding on your score. Basically, if someone wants to make trouble, there are better ways to do so.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d6937810c10c24969fcd83f1852c5c1",
"text": "No credit bureau wants incorrect data, for obvious reasons, but it happens. That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. Nope, that's not why you can get free access to your credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) is why. FCRA requires any credit reporting agency to provide you a free report upon request every 12 months. Prior to this law, credit agencies made you pay to see your report including if you wanted it to dispute errors. They only care about the dollars they get from having this data. FCRA removed one of their revenue streams. If free locking moves forward, that will remove another. So expect them to fight it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac6c8b4a19615ff7b2de20577028940c",
"text": "A credit card can be a long running line of credit that will help to boost your FICO score. However if you have student loans, a mortgage, or car payments those will work just as well. If you ever get to the point where you don't have any recent lines of credit, this may eventually end up hurting your score, but until then you really don't need any extras.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66b35acf56e4b858179a6a2252a75163",
"text": "\"I was I a similar position as you, and sometimes credit bureaus might be difficult to deal with, especially when high amounts of money are involved. To make the long story short, someone opened a store credit card under my name and made a charge of around 3k. After reporting this to the bureaus, they did not want to remove the account from my credit report citing that the claim was \"\"frivolous\"\". After filing a police report, the police officer gave me the phone number for the fraud department of this store credit card, and after they investigated, they removed the account from my credit. I would suggest to do the following: Communicating with Creditors and Debt Collectors You have the right to: Stop creditors and debt collectors from reporting fraudulent accounts. After you give them a copy of a valid identity theft report, they may not report fraudulent accounts to the credit reporting companies. Get copies of documents related to the theft of your identity, like transaction records or applications for new accounts. Write to the company that has the documents, and include a copy of your identity theft report. You also can tell the company to give the documents to a specific law enforcement agency. Stop a debt collector from contacting you. In most cases, debt collectors must stop contacting you after you send them a letter telling them to stop. Get written information from a debt collector about a debt, including the name of the creditor and the amount you supposedly owe. If a debt collector contacts you about a debt, request this information in writing. I know that you said that the main problem was that your credit account was combined with another. But there might be a chance that identity theft was involved. If this is the case, and you can prove it, then you might have access to more tools to help you. For example, you can file a report with the FTC, and along with a police report, this can be a powerful tool in stopping these charges. Feel free to go to the identitytheft.gov website for more information.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e073c71ae7a33cf89cf9a3a58ca8da94",
"text": "This is more of a legal question than a monetary one. You can try to negotiate with the debt owner as Pete B. suggests. Alternatively, you can ignore them and see what happens. They might sue you for the 400 plus costs, or maybe not. That is a pretty small amount for a lawyer to show up in a court of law. If you go to court, you can win by testifying that you returned the box and the charge is invalid. If you testify in court that you did not return the box, then you will lose. Sometimes a debt collector will just file a credit complaint against you and you would have to go to court to get that complaint removed from your record with the credit agency. The loan owner has no idea whether you returned the box at all. All they have is a debt security which simply says who owes the money and how much it is. In a court room they have zero evidence against you (unless you said something to them and they wrote it down or recorded it).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a4c992ed6dc741496581a54d8651f19",
"text": "\"http://annualcreditreport.com gives you free access to your 3 credit bureau records. (Annual, not \"\"free\"\". The \"\"free\"\" guys will try to sell you something.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f5d5938b69abf99b4c65d4e08c8b232",
"text": "\"My sister had a similar problem and went to an actual lawyer, not a \"\"credit repair agency\"\". The lawyers settled her debt for a lot less than she owed, and she also got a bonus: one of the creditors called her repeatedly, even after her lawyers had told them not to. The lawyers ended up getting her an extra $40,000. Combined with the debt settlement, she actually came out ahead. Of course, her credit score went down, but it recovered in a couple of years.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9798257382abe1279226130c288f7543",
"text": "You could make an entry for the disputed charge as if you were going to lose the dispute, and a second entry that reverses the charge as if you were going to win the dispute. You could then reconcile the account by including the first charge in the reconciliation and excluding the reversal until the issue has been resolved.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f865594d30bf48499c9c5fd1f2175d4d",
"text": "The best we can do in the Equifax case is freeze (not lock) our credit files at the credit bureaus and use the free annual credit reports via FTC.GOV. Unfreezing is an extra step one would have to go through before opening a new credit line, renting a new place, getting utilities hooked up, etc. But the freeze (versus the lock) essentially makes one’s data worthless to the credit reporting agencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12846ee71ec9c5769954964fdc8c2f01",
"text": "\"Patience has never been my strong suit Unfortunately this is what you need to build up credit. The activities that increase your credit score are paying your bills on time and not using too much of the available credit that you do have. The rest (age of accounts, recent pulls, etc.) are short-term indicators that indicate changes in behavior that will make lenders pause and understand what the reasons behind the events are. Also keep in mind that your credit score shouldn't run your life. It should be a passive indicator of your financial habits - not something that you actively manipulate. Is there anything I can do to raise my score without having to take out a loan with interest? Pay your bills on time, and don't take out more credit than you need. You're already in the \"\"excellent\"\" category, so there's no reason to panic or try to manipulate it. Even if you temporarily dip below, if you need to make a big purchase (house), your loan-to-value and debt/income ratio will be much bigger factors in what interest rate you can get. As far as the BofA card goes, if you don't need it, cancel it. It might cause a temporary dip in your credit, but it will go away quickly, and you're better off not having credit cards that you don't need.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f98231a9dd5399b44298bd3ba912d2a",
"text": "\"you can relate everything on a credit report, and how things are calculated, to life scenarios. thats a 100% fact, and thats what people need to go by when designing their credit dicipline/diet. utilization: any kind of resource in life. water, food, energy, and etc. who would you want to live with more, the guy that just eats way too much, uses way too much energy than they need, and wastes way more water than they need? assuming there was no water cycle. payment history: speaks for itself derogatory remarks: s*** happens. thats what makes life life, but when given chances to fix your mistakes and own up to them, like i and every other responsible adult have done, and you dont, thats living up to the exact definition of derogatory. disrespecting and not caring. who wants to lend to someone who doesnt care? so if youre not gonna care, we will just put this special little remark in the derogatory section and show that you dont care about when you make mistakes. f*** it right? lol. well, thats what that section is for. showing you wont try to fix things when they go sour. if i had a guy who was fixing my roof, and did a bad job, but did everything he could to fix it, i wouldnt give him a bad rep at all. if a guy messed up my roof, and just said cya thanks for your money, hes getting a derogatory remark. credit age: just like life. showing the ability to maintain EVERY other aspect of a report for X amount of time. its like getting old as a person. after X amount of years, a lot of people will be able to say more about you as a person. whether youre a real male reproductive organ or an amazing guy. total accounts: is like taking on jobs as a self employed person or any business. if you have a lot of jobs, people must want you to do their work. it shows how people \"\"like you.\"\" hard inquiries: this is the one category of them all i dont fully agree on, can go either way, and i hate it. i really cant think of a life scenario to relate it to, so i kind of think its a prevention mechanism/keep a person in check kind of thing. like to save them from themself and save the lenders. for example, if a guy has great utilization, and just goes insane applying for credit cards, hell get everyone of them because hes showing almost no utilization. then said guy goes and looses his job, but since he racked up 50 cards at 1k each, now he can destroy 50k in credit. thats just my take, but thats EXACTLY how i look at it from TU/EX/EQs point of view.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40866fb8a8243cc76e2a790a33cab482",
"text": "Some aspects of your general financial lifestyle make a big difference in your score. Always pay late; declare bankruptcy; have bills go to collection, these will hurt your overall score. Some aspects of your life start with a low score and rise over time: the number of years you have had credit. Some only have short term and transient impacts: what is your utilization rate today; when was your last hard pull. Any agonizing you do over the transient aspects during a period of time when your score doesn't matter, is a waste of energy. If you are looking for a new mortgage, or a another type of loan, then act in a way that will improve your score. But If you see no immediate need then don't sweat the details. If your credit limit is too low for your lifestyle, then ask for it to be increased. Just don't ask for the increase a few days before you put in the auto loan application.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69c0b762b3bcc88cf243d2bc0f4f0195",
"text": "What I would prefer is top open a new category charges under dispute and park the amount there. It can be made as an account as well in place of a income or expenses category. This way your account will reconcile and also you will be able to track the disputes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7404c2113917ce9a79bc2c3c0fa77e01",
"text": "I notice that a lot happened four months ago. You were denied credit twice. Your income went up from $20k to $60k. I'm wondering if you were denied credit based on your $20k income. Since you couldn't provide proof of your income I wonder if they used $0 for your income. Debt to income ratio is one significant factor included in the credit score calculation. You may not have a lot of debt, but if you don't have any income even a few hundred dollars on a credit card would throw your debt to income ratio into a panic. I'm assuming that your change from $20k to $60k income involved a change of jobs. Perhaps now you can provide proof of income. You would certainly need to do that before being approved for a mortgage. Well that's my two cents about what may (or may not) have gone wrong last time. As for what to do next I would agree that the most helpful thing you could do is check your credit score and fix any errors that might negatively impact your credit score. (There might also be non-errors that need addressed such as open credit accounts that you thought you had closed.) When building credit history, time is on your side. If you just go on living your life and paying your bills promptly, your credit will slowly climb to an acceptable level. Unfortunately in the time frame you mentioned (~1 year) there isn't really enough time to build it significantly. You bring up a valid point about credit applications reducing your credit score. Of course, that effect is somewhat minimal and temporary (2 yrs according to the thread linked to above). But again 1 year is not enough to recover. If you're considering applying for additional credit as a means to improve your credit score it may be too late to reap the benefits before your mortgage application. Of course if you could pay off any debts, that would help your debt to income ratio. But it would also reduce any house down payment you could save up and thereby increase the amount of your mortgage. Better just save those pennies (or preferably Washingtons and Benjamins) to put toward a down payment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d6a0684c5d2fd9d65960fd64b8dac44",
"text": "It appears all you have to do is submit a form. It might be better if she submitted it herself instead of you doing it on her behalf. All natural persons (individuals) and non-natural persons (businesses) are entitled to access and inspect the data held on record about them in the Central Credit Information System (KHR).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
08c7a419406416e29bf2e691219702c0
|
Why bid and ask do not match the price at which the stock is being traded [duplicate]
|
[
{
"docid": "a2e2659fbb6f56f7fab735ca812cc1df",
"text": "\"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \"\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\"\"; in reality, it is \"\"the last price traded\"\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "00d64462b1b09ff604bb7c35a27c8c37",
"text": "All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "306e4dbc38dd9989c1d6bd8e12f8a6bc",
"text": "\"What you need to do is go to yahoo finance and look at different stock's P/E ratios. You'll quickly see that the stocks can be sorted by this number. It would be an interesting exercise to get an idea of why P/E isn't a fixed number, how certain industries cluster around a certain number, but even this isn't precise. But, it will give you an idea as to why your question has no answer. \"\"Annual earnings are $1. What is the share price?\"\" \"\"Question has no answer\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8338b9c259879c606314f208ab3d4d19",
"text": "\"Firstly, if a stock costs $50 this second, the bid/ask would have to be 49/50. If the bid/ask were 49/51, the stock would cost $51 this second. What you're likely referring to is the last trade, not the cost. The last trading price is history and doesn't apply to future transactions. To make it simple, let's define a simple order book. Say there is a bid to buy 100 at $49, 200 at $48, 500 at $47. If you place a market order to sell 100 shares, it should all get filled at $49. If you had placed a market order to sell 200 shares instead, half should get filled at $49 and half at $48. This is, of course, assuming no one else places an order before you get yours submitted. If someone beats you to the 100 share lot, then your order could get filled at lower than what you thought you'd get. If your internet connection is slow or there is a lot of latency in the data from the exchange, then things like this could happen. Also, there are many ECNs in addition to the exchanges which may have different order books. There are also trades which, for some reason, get delayed and show up later in the \"\"time and sales\"\" window. But to answer the question of why someone would want to sell low... the only reason I could think is they desire to drive the price down.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "061794d07974822a5fc96e9755dfbc51",
"text": "\"Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? There are many scenarios where this is deliberate but all of them boil down to the fact that the top level's bid doesn't support the quantity you're trying to sell (or is otherwise bogus[1]). One scenario as an example: You're day-trading both sides but at the end of the day you accumulated a rather substantial long position in a stock. You don't want to (or aren't allowed to[2]) be exposed overnight, however. What do you do? You place an order that is highly likely to go through altogether. There's several ways to achieve that but a very simple one is to look at the minimum bid level for which the bid side is willing to take all of your shares, then place a limit order for the total quantity at that price. If your position doesn't fit into the top level bid that price will well be lower than the \"\"current\"\" bid. Footnotes: [1] Keyword: quote stuffing [2] Keyword: overnight margin (aka positional margin, as opposed to intraday margin), this is highly broker dependent, exchanges don't usually distinguish between intraday and overnight margins, instead they use the collective term maintenance margin\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99826d7e5cd49f3e0bf57faaa9c3ceed",
"text": "Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4b8f5d68c2f735007219a77e1cb00ca",
"text": "Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22193ec82ae522964d22232d696c02f4",
"text": "\"The market price of a stock is based on nothing at all more than what two parties were last willing to transact for it. The stock has a \"\"bid\"\" and an \"\"ask\"\" each is the value placed by a counterparty. For the sale to occur, one party must meet the other. The stock transacts and that is the price. For a stock to \"\"go up\"\" people must be willing to pay more for it. Likewise, for it to \"\"go down\"\" people must be willing to accept less for it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab30267ef9bb5db72220573b9c1bb73f",
"text": "\"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e66d8d3d84bf4d440bd71f3fba84564e",
"text": "The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3ecc559805b43e2987fe28d3406698f",
"text": "Because in the case for 100/101, if you wanted to placed a limit buy order at top of the bid list you would place it at 101 and get filled straight away. If placing a limit buy order at the top of 91 (for 90/98) you would not get filled but just be placed at the top of the list. You might get filled at a lower price if an ask comes in matching your bid, however you might never get filled. In regards to market orders, with the 100/101 being more liquid, if your market order is larger than the orders at 101, then the remainder of your order should still get filled at only a slightly higher price. In regards to market orders with the 90/98, being less liquid, it is likely that only part of your order gets filled, and any remained either doesn't get filled or gets filled at a much higher price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa69c931afc88305d93ce38b6a9dec08",
"text": "The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373870f36e0e786e2363317fec02a8a8",
"text": "In the world of stock exchanges, the result depends on the market state of the traded stock. There are two possibilities, (a) a trade occurs or (b) no trade occurs. During the so-called auction phase, bid and ask prices may overlap, actually they usually do. During an open market, when bid and ask match, trades occur.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe2ee8af9a7ba44d304152019483811",
"text": "yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e656547f1bc1d937b6442ccc45a63ab2",
"text": "When a stock is going to become public there's a level of analysis required to figure out the range of IPO price that makes sense. For a company that's somewhat mature, and has a sector to compare it to, you can come up with a range that would be pretty close. For the recent linkedin, it's tougher to price a somewhat unique company, running at a loss, in a market rich with cash looking for the next great deal. If one gives this any thought, an opening price that's so far above the IPO price represents a failure of the underwriters to price it correctly. It means the original owners just sold theirvshares for far less than the market thought they were worth on day one. The day of IPO the stock opens similar to how any stock would open at 9:30, there are bids and asks and a price at which supply (the ask) and demand (bid) balance. For this IPO, it would appear that there were enough buyers to push the price to twice the anticipated open and it's maintained that level since. It's possible to have a different system in which a Dutch auction is used to make the shares public, in theory this can work, it's just not used commonly.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b0353eb5873769de175d7620734fdfe",
"text": "A stock's price does not move in a completely continuous fashion. It moves in discrete steps depending on who is buying/selling at given prices. I'm guessing that by opening bell the price for buying/selling a particular stock has changed based on information obtained overnight. A company's stock closes at $40. Overnight, news breaks that the company's top selling product has a massive defect. The next morning the market opens. Are there any buyers of the stock at $40? Probably not. The first trade of the stock takes place at $30 and is thus, not the same as the previous day's close.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
96ea433a4f62b90fe9ee388f58234fc7
|
How do brokers make money from margin accounts?
|
[
{
"docid": "f5135a272a85115fd8dc1016cd7fe317",
"text": "They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e09675eb1b11e2d356c5e98f69dfd519",
"text": "\"Your broker will charge you commissions and debit interest on your \"\"overdraft\"\" of $30,000. However it is very likely that your contract with the broker also contains a rehypothecation clause which allows your broker to use your assets. Typically, with a debt of $30,000, they would probably be entitled to use $45-60,000 of your stocks. In short, that means that they would be allowed to \"\"borrow\"\" the stocks you just bought from your account and either lend them to other clients or pledge them as collateral with a bank and receive interest. In both cases they will make money with your stocks. See for example clause #14 of this typical broker's client agreement. Applied to your example: In other words they will make $60 + $450 + $1,800 = $2,310 the first year. If the stock is expensive to borrow and they manage to lend it, they will make a lot more. There are by the way a few important consequences:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e",
"text": "",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "150b659334d280ebad2c703db5e3618f",
"text": "At this point the cost of borrowing money is very low. For the sake of argument, say it is 1% per year for a large institution. I can either go out and find a client to invest 100,000$ and split profit and loss with them. Or, I could borrow 50,000$, pay 500$/year in interest, and get the same return and loss, while moving the market half as much (which would let me double my position!) In both cases the company is responsible for covering all fixed costs, like paying for traders, trades, office space, branding, management, regulatory compliance, etc. For your system to work, the cost to gather clients and interact with them has to be significantly less than 1% of the capital they provide you per year. At the 50% level, that might actually be worth it for the company in question. Except at the 50% level you'd have really horrible returns even when the market went up. So suppose a more reasonable level is the client keeps 75% of the returns (which compares to existing companies which offer larger investors an 80% cut on profits, but no coverage on losses). Now the cost to gather and interact with clients has to be lower than 2500$ per million dollars provided to beat out a simple loan arrangement. A single sales employee with 100% overhead (office, all marketing, support, benefits) earning 40,000$/year has to bring in 32 million dollar-years worth of investment every year to break even. Cash is cheap. Investment houses sell cash management, and charge for it. They don't sell shared investment risk (at least not to retail investors), because it would take a lot of cash for it to be worth their bother. More explicitly, for this to be viable, they'd basically have to constantly arrange large hedges against the market going down to cover any losses. That is the kind of thing that some margin loans may require. That would all by itself lower their profits significantly, and they would be exposed to counter-party risk on top of that. It is much harder to come up with a pile of cash when the markets go down significantly. If you are large enough to be worthwhile, finding a safe counterparty may be nearly impossible.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccda9ff7d29469ea162262ae51d604a9",
"text": "A CFD broker will let you open a trade on margin as long as your account balance is more than the margin required on all your open trades. If the required margin increases within a certain percentage of your account balance, you will get a margin call. If you then don't deposit more funds or close losing trades out, the broker will close all your trades. Note: Your account balance is the remaining funds you have left to open new trades with. I always use stop loss orders with all my open trades, and because of this my broker reduces the amount of margin required on each trade. This allows me to have more open trades at the one time without increasing my funds. Effects of a Losing Trade on Margin Say I have an account balance of $2,000 and open a long trade in a share CFD of 1,000 CFDs with a share price of $10 and margin of 10%. The face value of the shares would be $10,000, but my initial margin would be $1,000 (10% of $10,000). If I don't place a stop loss and the price falls to $9, I would have lost $1,000 and my remaining margin would now be $900 (10% of $9,000). So I would have $100 balance remaining in my account. I would probably receive a margin call to deposit more funds in or close out my trade. If I don't respond the broker will close out my position before my balance gets to $0. If instead I placed a stop loss at say $9.50, my initial margin might be reduced to $500. As the price drops to $9.60 I would have lost $400 and my remaining margin would now only be $100, with my account balance at $1,500. When the price drops to $9.50 I will get stopped out, my trade will be closed and I would have lost $500, with my account balance still at $1,500. Effects of a Winning Trade on Margin Say I have the same account balance as before and open the same trade but this time the price moves up. If I don't place a stop loss and the price goes up to $11, I would have made a $1,000 profit and my remaining margin will now be $1,100 (10% of $11,000). So my account balance would now be $2,000 + $1,000 - $1,100 = $1,900. If I had placed a stop loss at say $9.50 again and the price moves up to $10.50, I would have made a profit of $500 and my margin would now be $1,000. My account balance would be $2,000 + $500 - $1,000 = $1,500. However, if after the price went up to $10.50 I also moved my stop loss up to $10, then I would have $500 profit and only $500 margin. So my balance in this case would be $2,000 + $500 - $500 = $2,000. So by using stop losses as part of your risk management you can reduce the margin used from your balance which will allow you to open more trades without any extra funds deposited into your account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "651f98220897b2a34830fade5ce229dc",
"text": "\"Probably the most significant difference is the Damocles Sword hanging over your head, the Margin Call. In a nutshell, the lender (your broker) is going to require you to have a certain amount of assets in your account relative to your outstanding loan balance. The minimum ratio of liquid funds in the account to the loan is regulated in the US at 50% for the initial margin and 25% for maintenance margins. So here's where it gets sticky. If this ratio gets on the wrong side of the limits, the broker will force you to either add more assets/cash to your account t or immediately liquidate some of your holdings to remedy the situation. Assuming you don't have any/enough cash to fix the problem it can effectively force you to sell while your investments are in the tank and lock in a big loss. In fact, most margin agreements give the brokerage the right to sell your investments without your express consent in these situations. In this situation you might not even have the chance to pick which stock they sell. Source: Investopedia article, \"\"The Dreaded Margin Call\"\" Here's an example from the article: Let's say you purchase $20,000 worth of securities by borrowing $10,000 from your brokerage and paying $10,000 yourself. If the market value of the securities drops to $15,000, the equity in your account falls to $5,000 ($15,000 - $10,000 = $5,000). Assuming a maintenance requirement of 25%, you must have $3,750 in equity in your account (25% of $15,000 = $3,750). Thus, you're fine in this situation as the $5,000 worth of equity in your account is greater than the maintenance margin of $3,750. But let's assume the maintenance requirement of your brokerage is 40% instead of 25%. In this case, your equity of $5,000 is less than the maintenance margin of $6,000 (40% of $15,000 = $6,000). As a result, the brokerage may issue you a margin call. Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin2.asp#ixzz1RUitwcYg\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e59a5631dd56e3ef6ee6e5ed64fb044",
"text": "There are several ways that the issuers profit from CFDs. If the broker has trades on both sides (buy and sell) they can net the volumes off against each other and profit off the spread whilst using the posted margins to cover p&l from both sides. Because settlement for most securities is not on the same day that the order is placed they can also buy the security with no intention of taking delivery and simply sell it off at the end of day to pass delivery on to someone else. Here again they profit from the spread and that their volumes give them really low commissions so their costs are much lower than the value of the spread. If they have to do this rather than netting the position out the spreads will be wider. Sometimes that may be forced to buy the security outright but that is rare and the spreads will be even wider so that they can make a decent profit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e9cebde4465fbb20cb434e8b71958d4",
"text": "First, a margin account is required to trade options. If you buy a put, you have the right to deliver 100 shares at a fixed price, 50 can be yours, 50, you'll buy at the market. If you sell a put, you are obligated to buy the shares if put to you. All options are for 100 shares, I am unaware of any partial contract for fewer shares. Not sure what you mean by leveraging the position, can you spell it out more clearly?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37af8230459f9fd082a3253c53f9a72d",
"text": "To calculate any daily return, all one need do is divide the final value by the initial value, subtract 1, and multiply by 100%: This can be applied to either the futures alone, the investments used as margin collateral alone, or all together. Margin collateral as a factor of a derivative's return Collateral can take many forms. Many suggest that cost and revenue for a derivative trade should also take into account margin requirements. This can become problematic. If a futures position moved against the trader, yet the margin was secured with equities at the maximum, and the equities moved with the trader, the futures trade could be interpreted as less of a loss because the collateral, which is probably totally disassociated with the futures position, increased in value. Then again, if a futures position moved with the trader, yet the margin collateral moved against the trader then taken together, the futures trade would look less profitable. Furthermore, most likely the result of a futures position and its collateral would never produce the same result, so extrapolation would become ever more difficult. For ease of analysis, a position's cost and revenue should be segmented from another unless if those positions are meant to hedge each other. Margin is not a cost, but it is a liability, so margin will affect the balance sheet of a futures trade but not its income statement, again unless if the collateral is also used to hedge such futures position.",
"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": "eeb25ea7287379faa5d9910b4341b927",
"text": "The Margin Account holds the funds that are MUST for any margin trades. Any funds excess of the MUST for margin trades are kept in the SMA account. These funds can be used for further Margin trades in new securities [funds get transfered into the Margin Account]. They cannot be used to met the Shortfall due to margin calls on existing trades. New funds need to be arranged. More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_memorandum_account",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc7555754acdc44099d4e3b5c47bde52",
"text": "\"All discount brokers offer a commission structure that is based on the average kind of order that their target audience will make. Different brokers advertise to different target audiences. They could all have a lot lower commissions than they do. The maximum commission price for the order ticket is set at $99 by the industry securities regulators. When discount brokers came along and started offering $2 - $9.99 trades, it was simply because these new companies could be competitive in a place where incumbents were overcharging. The same exists with Robinhood. The market landscape and costs have changed over the last decade with regulation NMS, and other brokerage firms never needed to update drastically because they could continue making a lot on commissions with nobody questioning it. The conclusion being that other brokers can also charge a lot less, despite their other overhead costs. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms (and anyone else trading directly with the exchanges), are paid by the exchanges for adding liquidity. Not only are many trades placed with no commission for the broker, they actually earn money for placing the trade. If Robinhood was doing you any favors, they would be paying you. But nobody questions free commissions so they don't. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms, sells your trading data to the highest bidder. This is called \"\"payment for order flow\"\", these subscribers see your order on the internet in route to the exhange, and before your order gets to the exchange, the subscriber sends a different order to the exchange so they either get filled before you do (analogous to front running, but different enough to not be illegal) or they alter the price of the thing you wanted to buy or sell so that you have to get a worse price. These subscribers have faster computers and faster internet access than other market participants, so are able to do this so quickly. They are also burning a lot of venture capital like all startups. You shouldn't place too much faith in the idea they are making [enough] money. They also have plans to earn interest off of balances in a variety of ways and offer more options at a price (like margin accounts).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f4b63602a7e10e49bc26cd8007252f9f",
"text": "\"Margin trades let you post a margin of a certain proportion of the value of the trade as collateral against the price of a trade and pay off the difference between the current price and the price that you bought at. Any losses incurred are taken from the margin so the margin has to be maintained as prices change. In practice this means that when the price moves significantly from the buying price a \"\"margin call\"\" is triggered and the buyer has to increase their posted margin. The vast majority of the foreign exchange trades done every day are margin trades as (effectively) are all spread bets. Margins get reset overnight whether or not a call has occurred.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48f2f7e7684e11a35af00f9f7ed2509",
"text": "\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef05b1d48b952443d224558d3703b678",
"text": "If you enter a futures contract, it costs nothing. So every time prices move against you, there is a margin call and you must put up some new money. Inverse ETF's use a variety of similar strategies to get their returns. Many of these strategies may indeed require a margin call to the ETF issuer if prices move against you. But remember the ETF did not cost nothing. Investors contributed money in order to purchase each share of the ETF. Therefore the ETF issuer has a big pot of money available for use as margin. That's why the margin call never comes through to you. In a sense, you posted a ton of margin up front, so you won't have to make any additional margin contributions. The money that will be used for margin calls is being kept in treasuries and money market securities by the ETF issuer until it's needed. If prices move against you badly enough that it looks like the ETF is at risk to not be able to post margin, the ETF would liquidate and you'd get whatever pittance was left after they exit all those positions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec7d2ef1dff37af96aaffcddc92c658b",
"text": "They make money off you by increasing the spread you buy and sell your stocks through them. So for example, if the normal spread for a stock was $10.00 for a buy and $10.02 for a sell, they might have a spread of $9.98 for the buy and $10.02 for the sell. So for an order of 1000 shares (approx. $10000) they would make $0.02 per share which would equal $20.00.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2d9898b05ac15bce7d63602f87d62aa",
"text": "What I did not understand when I first called is that margin able account means the ability to borrow margin, but not the necessity of borrowing. Like I was saying, it is something I am going to do a lot of due diligence on before I plunge in. I have a general vague idea of futures, and thus why I was asking for info on the matter.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "de1c3721708671a47ab4ef8409f51c16",
"text": "If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cd007db48c97f0c6a760cf69d2ceaefc
|
Is there an online service that provides public company information through a public API?
|
[
{
"docid": "06b31c6a2e973cc2679cd67547f3934c",
"text": "I don't know of any free API's for these data, but I'll provide what information I can. Compiling all of this information from the EDGAR system and exposing an interface to it requires a fair amount of work and maintenance, so it's usually market data companies that have the motivation and resources to provide such interfaces. I know of a few options that may or may not be close to what you're looking for. The SEC provides FTP access to the EDGAR system. You could download and parse the text files they provide. Yahoo Finance provides summary files of financial statements (e.g., GOOG) as well as links to the full statements in the EDGAR system. Once again, parsing may be your only option for these data. Xignite, a proprietary market data provider, provides a financial statement API. If you need these data for a commercial application, you could contact them and work something out. (Frankly, if you need these data for a commercial application, you're probably better off paying for the data) The Center for Research into Security Prices provides data from financial statements. I believe it's also exposed through several of their API's. As with most financial data, CRSP is sort of a gold standard, although I haven't personally used their API to fetch data from financial statements, so I can't speak for it specifically. This answer on StackOverflow mentions the quantmod R package and mergent. I can't vouch for either of those options personally. Unfortunately, you'll probably have to do some parsing unless you can find a paid data provider that's already compiled this information in a machine-readable format.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6db30f454c040ad0bfefaf7151447a71",
"text": "Good day! Did a little research by using oldest public company (Dutch East India Company, VOC, traded in Amsterdam Stock Exchange) as search criteria and found this lovely graph from http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-and-fall-of-united-east-india-2013-11?IR=T : Why it is relevant? Below the image I found the source of data - Global Financial Data. I guess the answer to your question would be to go there: https://www.globalfinancialdata.com/index.html Hope this helps and good luck in your search!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14db1fac0614f6591f771f0bf4e8793d",
"text": "\"Here are some approaches you may value: Wolfram Alpha This is a search engine with a difference. It literally is connected to thousands of searchable databases, including financial databases. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=list+of+public+companies+ Just keep clicking the \"\"more\"\" button until you have them all.You can also get great company specific information there: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=NYSE%3ADIS&lk=1&a=ClashPrefs_*Financial.NYSE%3ADIS- Just keep clicking the \"\"more\"\" button until you have them all.Then the company it'self will have great information for investors too: [http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/investors][3] (Just keep clicking the \"\"more\"\" button until you have them all.) Regards, Stephen\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fd2d162f642ff8472e70dd04df379bd",
"text": "I don't think any open source trading project is going to offer trial or demo accounts. In fact, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Are you looking for some example data sets so you can see how your algorithm would perform historically? If you contact whatever specific brokers that you'd like to interface with, they can provide things like connection tests, etc., but no one is going to let you do live trades on a trial or demo basis. For more information about setting this sort of thing up at home, here's a good link: < http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~abrock/algotrading/index.html >. It's not Python specific, but should give you a good idea of what to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16b3af99339f2f92b430b82684535adb",
"text": "\"Such data is typically only available from paid sources due to the amount of research involved in determining the identity of delisted securities, surviving entities in merger scenarios, company name changes, symbol changes, listing venue changes, research of all capital events such as splits, and to ensure that the data coverage is complete. Many stocks that are delisted from a major exchange due to financial difficulties are still publicly tradeable companies with their continuing to trade as \"\"OTC\"\" shares. Some large companies even have periods where they traded for a period of their history as OTC. This happened to NYSE:NAV (Navistar) from Feb 2007 to July 2008, where they were delisted due to accounting statement inaccuracies and auditor difficulties. In the case of Macromedia, it was listed on NASDAQ 13 Dec 1993 and had its final day of trading on 2 Dec 2005. It had one stock split (2:1) with ex-date of 16 Oct 1995 and no dividends were ever paid. Other companies are harder to find. For example, the bankrupt General Motors (was NYSE:GM) became Motoros Liquidation Corp (OTC:MTLQQ) and traded that way for almost 21 months before finally delisting. In mergers, there are in two (or more) entities - one surviving entity and one (or more) delisted entity. In demergers/spinoffs there are two (or more) entities - one that continues the capital structure of the original company and the other newly formed spun-off entity. Just using the names of the companies is no indication of its history. For example, due to monopoly considerations, AT&T were forced to spinoff multiple companies in 1984 and effectively became 75% smaller. One of the companies they spunoff was Southwestern Bell Corporation, which became SBC Communications in 1995. In 2005 SBC took over its former parent company and immediately changed its name to AT&T. So now we have two AT&Ts - one that was delisted in 2005 and another that exists to this day. Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate Data (Premium Data), a data vendor in this area.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f8ff70696e06a1a1df44938f4de14eb",
"text": "If you have access, factset and bloomberg have this. However, these aren't standardized due to non-existent reporting regulations, therefore each company may choose to categorize regions differently. This makes it difficult to work with a large universe, and you'll probably end up doing a large portion manually anyways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e1635a637bbb1a5c4363476bdfa51e1",
"text": "\"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f5a172bfd2cf8beccadbe49b2bfc359",
"text": "You can access financial statements contained within 10K and 10Q filings using Last10K.com's mobile app: Last10K.com/mobile Disclosure: I work for Last10K.com",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc2b1071dc0a591bb00427ba3c3f5688",
"text": "If it is Texas company, you can try doing a taxable entity search on the Texas Comptroller website.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46651b3b3476d6ee2c361efaaa80b1bb",
"text": "It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4aed3075c497077d08f6a1db8c7a9b20",
"text": "\"Edgar Online has this information for companies under SEC regulations and they are reported in \"\"Form 4\"\" so that should help guide your search\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ea53f26fcd0dbb82c5c79e8ebe2c3638",
"text": "I think Infochimps has what you are looking for: NYSE and NASDAQ.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99386fa9b260421fb0738fe172b98ebb",
"text": "As another answer started, this information comes straight from an exchange and generally costs a fortune . . . However things change: IEX, a new exchange, recently opened and they are offering real time bid/ask data for free. Here's the API description: https://www.iextrading.com/developer/ This data should be good for active securities, but for securities less actively traded the numbers might be stale.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0498d551c7e0a4ad4de52bfab30b7d3e",
"text": "How can I get quarterly information about private companies? Ask the owner(s). Unelss you have a relationship and they're interested in helping you, they will likely tell you no as there's no compelling reason for them to do so. It's a huge benefit of not taking a company public.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d6785de13ddb0dbb31dddee8e6ca16c9",
"text": "Reuters has a service you can subscribe to that will give you lots of Financial information that is not readily available in common feeds. One of the things you can find is the listing/delist dates of stocks. There are tools to build custom reports. That would be a report you could write. You can probably get the data for free through their rss feeds and on their website, but the custom reports is a paid feature. FWIW re-listing(listings that have been delisted but return to a status that they can be listed again) is pretty rare. And I can not think of too many(any actually) penny stocks that have grown to be listed on a major exchange.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "53552812408e5317cdfaa66b3d22b403",
"text": "Credit cards have two revenue streams: So yes, the are making money from your daily use of the card.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6089fe417cc20ff76fa4be5ffdb9cefa
|
How are Canada Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) & related tax measures changing in 2015?
|
[
{
"docid": "fb4600091bc47c55b4e482237fe59389",
"text": "The Child Care Expense Deduction (line 214) dollar limits will each increase by $1000, to new amounts of $8000 for children under 7 and $5000 for children age 7–16. Notes: As a tax deduction, your tax liability gets reduced at your marginal income tax rate, not the lowest tax rate (as would be the case for a tax credit). Yes, you still need receipts from your child care provider to support any claim. The non-refundable child tax credit a.k.a. amount for children under age 18 (line 367) introduced in 2007 is being eliminated starting in tax year 2015 coincident with the UCCB enhancement above. The credit could previously reduce tax liability by ~$340. The Family Tax Cut is being introduced and will be effective for tax year 2014. That is, when you file your 2014 income tax return in early 2015, you may be able to take advantage of this measure for income already earned in 2014. Provided a couple has at least one child under the age of 18, the Family Tax Cut will permit the transfer of up to $50,000 of taxable income from the higher income spouse's income tax return to the lower income spouse's return. While the potential transfer of $50,000 of taxable income to lower tax brackets sounds like a really big deal, the maximum tax relief is capped at $2000.",
"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": "a51c9ca986fa7b362dce41bd2e9c1e30",
"text": "The HST is a sales tax levied on most goods and services. It is important to realize that in both BC and Ontario, the new HST does not (in most cases) result in an increase in sales tax paid. For example, in Ontario the PST is 8% and when combined with the GST the sales tax is 13%. With the HST, the GST and PST are replaced by a single HST of 13% so the tax bill does not change. Some services that were previously not subject to PST (such as mutual fund service fees and labour) will now be subject to the HST. So some things will increase. Over time, this should not have a material impact on the consumer due to the way businesses remit GST/HST.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5a6ee01f613cba40250e9c47acbc942a",
"text": "Interesting question. I would need to look at the actual wording on the subsidies themselves. I’ll dig around. In the mean time, do you have any suggestions that could narrow down my search? Many times, these things are riders on other bills, to both get it passed and to give them an out if someone is called on it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51328a301d4669335b4e1106f2a1a7dc",
"text": "Apparently Canadians have not been paying any tax on Uber rides, and will only begin to do so on July 1, 2017. Source: http://mobilesyrup.com/2017/03/22/uber-canada-gst-hst-budget-2017/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "992c4a800619acd532506d590e88bf8b",
"text": "For the record, now that 2011 is here we know that the capital gains tax rate didn't change. Congress extended it for two more years. This shows the uncertainty in trying to maximize earnings based on future changes to the tax code.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cba1425be952a8c31d88fddb317ac8f0",
"text": "I've had zero taxable income for the past 2 years and yet the calculations say I owe the government $250 for each year for the Self Employment tax. How can they charge a non-zero tax on my income when my taxable income is zero? That is theft. That demands reform.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2879e23dfed3d2f20fceb14c4d2cd3ef",
"text": "You can withdraw from your RRSP to pay your taxes. While not necessarily advisable, it is permitted — yet the tax consequences are no different just because you happen to be using the money to pay a prior year's income tax balance due. When you make the withdrawal from your RRSP, an amount will be withheld towards your income tax for the withdrawal year. Assuming you have other income, then you are likely to owe CRA even more than the amount withheld, because the withdrawal is effectively taxed at your marginal rate. In that case, consider the withholding tax merely a downpayment. You'll figure the final amount due when you file your next income tax return. e.g. If you were to withdraw money from your RRSP today (in 2015) to pay your 2014 income tax balance due, then on your 2015 income tax return, you'll need to declare the withdrawn amount as income for 2015. You'll get credit for the withholding taxes already paid when you made the withdrawal. Your tax return will indicate how much more you'll need to pay to settle your 2015 taxes. If you then pay your 2015 income tax balance due with an RRSP withdrawal in 2016, then ... repeat. Better to save up funds elsewhere (e.g. in a bank account, or a TFSA) to cover an anticipated income tax balance owing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2f14093bb805376835aaae77acd0545",
"text": "\"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/ontarios-basic-income-pilot-will-discourage-work-and-encourage-dependency) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A basic income for the entire population would make many Ontarians, currently ineligible for social assistance, eligible for the basic income transfer. > Another experimental program in British Columbia and New Brunswick in the 1990s, designed to encourage single parents to transition from dependency on welfare to employment, showed that an income transfer conditional on work can reduce dependency on government. > While Ontario&#039;s basic income pilot program may shed new light on the issue, it won&#039;t &quot;Help more people in our province get ahead and stay ahead,&quot; as the premier suggests. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6o80ch/ontarios_basic_income_pilot_will_discourage_work/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~170468 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*: **income**^#1 **work**^#2 **government**^#3 **transfer**^#4 **Basic**^#5\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3fd6b4b3098f509fe727bf7a0c5a72f0",
"text": "Canada doesn't seem to have a gift tax. http://www.taxtips.ca/personaltax/giftsandinheritances.htm",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc55d2f06ed16eb2a0e502d86f342e03",
"text": "\"So the main reason that you aren't getting answers is that the question is not really answerable on this site without putting a lot of details about the expenses of your company online. Even then you will need someone who specializes in Canadian taxes to go through those details to be sure. Most of those people feel like they should be paid a decent amount per hour to go through the details. That being said, I dealt with a similar question for my contract work company by just taking a couple weekends and calculating the taxes myself on estimated numbers. It was time consuming but not really that hard. I thought I might have to buy software, but all I needed was a small calculator. Along the way I learned a few details that helped me lower my overall tax exposure. I found that Neil was generally correct that you are \"\"taxed on profits\"\" but it is worth doing the taxes yourself because the details can really matter.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5ebcc142cf76a66cebded13d2910d6cf",
"text": "\"> If you are a corporation residing in Canada, you still pay Canadian taxes on worldwide income, even if that income is sourced in another country. For corporate tax, that's not exactly true see the Foreign Accrual Property Income rules (FAPI). Only for what is considered \"\"investment business\"\" income does the company have to pay Canadian taxes on worldwide income. \"\"Active business\"\" income, which would but pretty much everything BK is doing, is repatriated tax free like any other inter-company dividend. In the US that active business income would be subject to a CFC tax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "955e9a7695c899ea8a9d862c9010fb52",
"text": "\"This change doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Interest is an expense. Expenses are deductible. Yes, there are loopholes, but no matter what happens there will be loopholes. Seems like any easy \"\"no\"\" vote. Sometimes it worries me that we have financially incompetent people in power.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e749065a0f4b7021263d95af5976c0d",
"text": "I agree that double taxation makes no sense regardless of individual or corporation. Having said that, it's my understanding that Murca offers corporations tax credits on foreign taxes paid to avoid double taxation. I'm pretty sure that a similar vehicle exists for individuals as well. My issue is entirely with corporations paying off legislators to avoid taxes that they have an obligation to pay in the country that they operate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "520e7ba0e4b551aa44c93970fffdde0d",
"text": "On pensions, part of the issue will be how well funded they are. Most pensions are not completely funded. In the US pension payments are insured to an annual cap by the PBGC. So you can loose out on part of your pension payment. I don't know what/if there is an equivalent in Canada.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97c49e6547ad8640d2b8e83b0f8209ea",
"text": "You should check several things: How your business can deduct your child care expenses is beyond me. If your mother-in-law starts a business as a neighborhood babysitter, she might get some deductions for her related expenses though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
55442ccdef2671d9f6197df550b4836c
|
HELOC vs. Parental Student Loans vs. Second Mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "bc18c3a95b8204077e22822c3017ac1a",
"text": "\"Thank God you have your child back, it is so awesome that you finally found a medical treatment that worked. It must have been a truly trying time in your lives. That situation is an important template in personal finance. Through no fault of your own, a series of events occurred that caused you to spend far more money then you anticipated. Per your post this was complicated by lost income due to economic situations. What is to say that this does not happen again in the future? While we can all hope that our child does not get sick, there are other events that could also fit into this template. Because of this I hate all options you present. Per your post, you are pretty thin with free cash flow and have high income, and yet you are looking to borrow more. That is a recipe for disaster with it being made worse as you are considering putting your home at risk. The 20K per year per kid sounds like a live at the university state school; or, a close by private school. Your finances do not support either option. There are times when the word \"\"No\"\" is in order when answering questions. Doing a live at home community college to university will cost you a total of about 30K per kid rather than the 80K you are proposing. Doing this alone will greatly reduce the risk you are attempting to assume. Doing that and having your child work some, you could cash flow college. That is what I would recommend. Given that you are so thin, you will also have to put constraints on college attendance. No changing major three times, only majors with an employable skills, and studying before partying. It may be worth it to wait a year of two before attending if a decision cannot be made. I was in a similar situation when my son started college. High income, but broke. He worked and went to a community college and was able to pay for the bulk of it himself. From there he obtained a job with a healthy salary and completed his degree at the University. It took him a little longer, but he is debt free and has a fantastic work ethic.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ddf37e74216c6c1bc579683b1faa7f9",
"text": "I'd like to propose a 4th option: Let your kid(s) take out their own student loans, and then you can make payments directly to help them pay them down. Some advantages to this method: Note the many similarities to the HELOC, which would probably be my second choice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "787ed768b2077e8cfaa2f0122df8b11b",
"text": "Debt is no fun. Getting out of debt to replace it with more debt is no fun. In both cases, you are making an investment in your child's future. That's laudable, but there might be other ways to economize on the education costs. I prefer HELOC debt because I can deduct the interest (as you pointed out) and it usually allows re-borrowing if other cash-flow problems crop up. The downside of borrowing against your house is that your house could be foreclosed if you become insolvent, and you will lose your buffer if you max out the equity now. The same problem exists with a 2nd mortgage. The fact that you would still have a mortgage either way does make the option more attractive though (or less unattractive anyway).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f9ba2fbf8bc4ade401666b89c7123cbf",
"text": "\"First of all, I'm happy that the medical treatments were successful. I can't even imagine what you were going through. However, you are now faced with a not-so-uncommon reality that many households face. Here's some other options you might not have thought of: I would avoid adding more debt if at all possible. I would first focus on the the cost side. With a good income you can also squeeze every last dollar out of your budget to send them to school. I agree with your dislike of parent loans for the same reasons, plus they don't encourage cost savings and there's no asset to \"\"give back\"\" if school doesn't work out (roughly half of all students that start college don't graduate) I would also avoid borrowing more than 80% of your home's value to avoid PMI or higher loan rates. You also say that you can pay off the HELOC in 5 years - why can you do that but not cash flow the college? Also note that a second mortgage may be worse that a HELOC - the fees will be higher, and you still won't be able to borrow more that what the house is worth.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "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": "d1bddb921a5215528c109be80cf7c46b",
"text": "Timo's concern may be accurate, but talking to the bank is the next step. If I am the banker, I'm happier that (a) there's 25% down, and (b) it's not an additional loan as some might get from a parent. It's not that your parents have a lien for the 25% as a lender would, the structure is ownership, they own 25%. An important, if not obvious, distinction. Timo is right that as an asset of the parents, the ownership stake is at risk if their finances run into issues. Other than that, so long as all is done above board, your proposal can work. The bank will want your parents to sign the note of course, you can't mortgage property you don't fully own.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f5dd68de3ec919add46bf5c947d97fd",
"text": "First, don't borrow any more money. You're probably bankrupt right now at that income level. 2k/month is poverty level income, especially in some of the higher cost of living areas of California. At $2k per month of income, and $1300 of rent and utilities, you've only got 700 a month for food. The student loans are probably in deferment while your husband is in school. If so, keep them that way and deal with them when he lands a career track goal after grad school. The car loan is more than you can afford. Seriously consider selling the car to get rid of the note. Then use the cash flow that was going to the car loan to pay off the 'other' debt. A car is usually a luxury, but if it is necessary, be sure it is one that doesn't include a loan. Budget all of your income (consider using YNAB or something like it). Include a budget item to build an emergency fund. Live within your means and look for ways to supplement your income. With three of your own, you'd probably make an excellent baby sitter. As for the inheritance, find a low risk, liquid investment, such as 12 month CDs or savings bonds. Something that you can liquidate without penalty if an emergency arises. Save the money for if you get into a situation where there is no other way out. Hopefully you can have your emergency fund built up so that you don't need to draw on the inheritance. Set a date, grad school + landing + 90 days. If you reach that date and haven't had to use the inheritance, and you have a good emergency fund, put the inheritance in a retirement fund and forget about it. Why retirement fund and not a college fund for the kids? The best gift you can give them is to remain financially independent throughout your life. If you get to the point where you are fully funding your tax advantaged retirement savings, and you are ready to start wealth-building, that is the time to take part of that cash flow and set it aside for college funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc667cc46903d9bf2c8fd48ffd853d9e",
"text": "\"I'll start by focussing on the numbers. I highly recommend you get comfortable with spreadsheets to do these calculations on your own. I assume a $200K loan, the mortgage for a $250K house. Scale this up or down as appropriate. For the rate, I used the current US average for the 30 and 15 year fixed loans. You can see 2 things. First, even with that lower rate to go 15 years, the payment required is 51% higher than with the 30. I'll get back to that. Second, to pay the 30 at 15 years, you'd need an extra $73. Because now you are paying at a 15 year pace, but with a 30 year rate. This is $876/yr to keep that flexibility. These are the numbers. There are 2 camps in viewing the longer term debt. There are those who view debt as evil, the $900/mo payment would keep them up at night until it's gone, and they would prefer to have zero debt regardless of the lifestyle choices they'd need to make or the alternative uses of that money. To them, it's not your house as long as you have a mortgage. (But they're ok with the local tax assessor having a statutory lien and his hand out every quarter.) The flip side are those who will say this is the cheapest money you'll ever see, and you should have as large a mortgage as you can, for as long as you can. Treat the interest like rent, and invest your money. My own view is more in the middle. Look at your situation. I'd prioritize In my opinion, it makes little sense to focus on the mortgage unless and until the first 5 items above are in place. The extra $459 to go to 15? If it's not stealing from those other items or making your cash flow tight, go for it. Keep one subtle point in mind, risk is like matter and energy, it's not created or destroyed but just moved around. Those who offer the cliche \"\"debt creates risk\"\" are correct, but the risk is not yours, it's the lender's. Looking at your own finances, liquidity is important. You can take the 15 year mortgage, and 10 years in, lose your job. The bank still wants its payments every month. Even if you had no mortgage, the tax collector is still there. To keep your risk low, you want a safety net that will cover you between jobs, illness, new babies being born, etc. I've gone head to head with people insisting on prioritizing the mortgage payoff ahead of the matched 401(k) deposit. Funny, they'd prefer to owe $75K less, while that $75K could have been deposited pretax (so $100K, for those in the 25% bracket) and matched, to $200K. Don't make that mistake.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "697aa1e67d729aa80962e421ebe99b24",
"text": "I am a real estate agent. I know you are in Canada, but will let you know that in the US, agents are not to supposed to offer this kind of advice. They can refer you to a bank or mortgage broker, but should not be giving this type of financial advice. That said, it's a HELOC, it would be rare for your bank to be willing to just add to your mortgage at the current low rate. Still, ask the bank holding your loan. Is the second home to rent out or a vacation/summer home for you to live in?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e4ad5de991424ab48e01a72ac5cbd3ac",
"text": "\"I'll assume you live in the US for the start of my answer - Do you maximize your retirement savings at work, at least getting your employer's match in full, if they do this. Do you have any other debt that's at a higher rate? Is your emergency account funded to your satisfaction? If you lost your job and tenant on the same day, how long before you were in trouble? The \"\"pay early\"\" question seems to hit an emotional nerve with most people. While I start with the above and then segue to \"\"would you be happy with a long term 5% return?\"\" there's one major point not to miss - money paid to either mortgage isn't liquid. The idea of owing out no money at all is great, but paying anything less than \"\"paid in full\"\" leaves you still owing that monthly payment. You can send $400K against your $500K mortgage, and still owe $3K per month until paid. And if you lose your job, you may not so easily refinance the remaining $100K to a lower payment so easily. If your goal is to continue with real estate, you don't prepay, you save cash for the next deal. Don't know if that was your intent at some point. Disclosure - my situation - Maxing out retirement accounts was my priority, then saving for college. Over the years, I had multiple refinances, each of which was a no-cost deal. The first refi saved with a lower rate. The second, was in early 2000s when back interest was so low I took a chunk of cash, paid principal down and went to a 20yr from the original 30. The kid starts college, and we target retirement in 6 years. I am paying the mortgage (now 2 years into a 10yr) to be done the month before the kid flies out. If I were younger, I'd be at the start of a new 30 yr at the recent 4.5% bottom. I think that a cost of near 3% after tax, and inflation soon to near/exceed 3% makes borrowing free, and I can invest conservatively in stocks that will have a dividend yield above this. Jane and I discussed the plan, and agree to retire mortgage free.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fe641ec5ad4250f5b01cdca09248e555",
"text": "What you haven't mentioned is the purchase risk. You say that she will buy but then say you will be on the loan. If you are on the loan, essentially you will be purchasing a rental property and renting to your mother. So that is the analysis you need to consider. You need to be financially able to take on this purchase and be willing to be a landlord. The ten year timeline looks good on paper. This may not be realistic, especially with an aging parent. What if after 4 years, she can't stay in that condo? What renting buys is flexibility. If she needs money for any reason, it is not tied up in an asset and unavailable. She is able it move if necessary. If she won't need the money, she should buy in cash. That, by far, gives her the best deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e75850e4483364cea159dc4e7a85ee",
"text": "The biggest issue I can see is that in order to have your parents protected properly, they'll have to register an interest in the property (ie, the 25%). I can't see the mortgage lender being too happy to have a second lienholder on the house for a total of 100% of the purchase price. Usually their conditions state that they'll need to be informed of other debts secured on the house and might actually have a say in that. Another way of accomplishing this is putting your parents on the house's deeds but that might also complicate matters with the lender and cause additional problems when it comes to selling the property. Not to mention that if anything bad happens to your parents, their stake in your property would be counted as one of their assets and you might find yourself in the situation where you have to come up with 25% of the property value right now or you might find that you have to sell the property to the first bidder simply because you do need the money as quickly as possible. Personally I wouldn't do it (especially without legal advice), the legal structure can be a nightmare and you'll just end up painted into a corner.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c88555d43ab1551de25728acbc573e73",
"text": "Have you looked at conventional financing rather than VA? VA loans are not a great deal. Conventional tends to be the best, and FHA being better than VA. While your rate looks very competitive, it looks like there will be a .5% fee for a refinance on top of other closing costs. If I have the numbers correct, you are looking to finance about 120K, and the house is worth about 140K. Given your salary and equity, you should have no problem getting a conventional loan assuming good enough credit. While the 30 year is tempting, the thing I hate about it is that you will be 78 when the home is paid off. Are you intending on working that long? Also you are restarting the clock on your mortgage. Presumably you have paid on it for a number of years, and now you will start that long journey over. If you were to take the 15 year how much would go to retirement? You claim that the $320 in savings will go toward retirement if you take the 30 year, but could you save any if you took the 15 year? All in all I would rate your plan a B-. It is a plan that will allow you to retire with dignity, and is not based on crazy assumptions. Your success comes in the execution. Will you actually put the $320 into retirement, or will the needs of the kids come before that? A strict budget is really a key component with a stay at home spouse. The A+ plan would be to get the 15 year, and put about $650 toward retirement each month. Its tough to do, but what sacrifices can you make to get there? Can you move your plan a bit closer to the ideal plan? One thing you have not addressed is how you will handle college for the kids. While in the process of long term planning, you might want to get on the same page with your wife on what you will offer the kids for help with college. A viable plan is to pay their room and board, have them work, and for them to pay their own tuition to community college. They are responsible for their own spending money and transportation. Thank you for your service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419c9242f195bf26a718bf4e307dc73d",
"text": "You are thinking about this very well. With option one, you need to think about the 5 D's in the contract. What happens when one partner becomes disinterested, divorced (break up), does drugs (something illegal), dies or does not agree with decisions. One complication if you buy jointly, and decide to break up/move, on will the other partner be able to refinance? If not the leaving person will probably not be able to finance a new home as the banks are rarely willing to assume multiple mortgage risks for one person. (High income/large down payment not with standing.) I prefer the one person rents option to option one. The trouble with that is that it sounds like you are in better position to be the owner, and she has a higher emotional need to own. If she is really interested in building equity I would recommend a 15 year or shorter mortgage. Building equity in a 30 year is not realistic.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bdfd5ce66cf0f7d8c16d6afe9271b032",
"text": "Sounds like baloney to me. HELOCs are variable rate, so you are paying down the principal of a fixed rate loan with a variable rate loan. If you want to pay the mortgage down faster, make two half payments per month, and/or add a little extra to each payment (make sure with the bank that any extra will automatically go to principal).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "533546a8bd52ff06c852c9289bb0573c",
"text": "\"Banks are currently a lot less open to 'creative financing' than they were a few years ago, but you may still be able to take advantage of the tactic of splitting the loan into two parts, a smaller 'second mortgage' sometimes called a 'purchase money second' at a slightly higher interest rate for around 15-20% of the value, and the remaining in a conventional mortgage. Since this tactic has been around for a long time, it's not quite in the category of the shenanegans they were pulling a few years back, so has a lot more potential to still be an option. I did this in for my first house in '93 and again in '99 when I moved to a larger home after getting married. It allowed me to get into both houses with less than 20% down and not pay PMI. This way neither loan is above 80% so you don't have to pay PMI. The interest on the second loan will be higher, but usually only a few percent, and is thus usually a fraction of what you were paying for the PMI. (and it's deductible from your taxes) If you've been making your payments on time and have a good credit rating, then you might be able to find someone who would offer you such a deal. You might even be able to get a rate for your primary that is down in the low 4's depending on where rates are today and what your credit rating is like. If you can get the main loan low enough, even if the other is like say 7%, your blended rate may still be right around 5% If you can find a deal like this, it's also great material to use to negotiate with your current lender \"\"either help me get the PMI off this loan or I'm going to refinance.\"\" Then you can compare what they will offer you with what you can get in a refinance and decide what makes the most sense for you. On word of warning, when refinancing, do NOT get sucked into an adjustable rate mortgage. If you are finding life 'tight' right now with house payments and all, the an ARM could be highly seductive since they often offer a very low initial rate.. however then invariably adjust upwards, and you could suddenly find yourself with a monster payment far larger than what you have now. With low rates where they are, getting a conventional fixed rate loan (or loans in the case of the tactic being discussed here) is the way to go.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dcc3acd371bdd4deaee29dc8a8fd546a",
"text": "Yes, one is certainly better than the other. Which one depends on your priorities and the interest and tax rates on your student loan, your savings, and your (future) mortgage plus how much you can afford to save and still enjoy the lifestyle you want as well as how soon you want to move out. Basically, you havn't given enough information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "07cc6e02b5e2adaa710b7e947bd93f5b",
"text": "A home equity loan (not a HELOC home equity line of credit) typically comes with far lower fees, but a slightly higher rate. As rates fell over the last decade, I saw a choice of the Equity Loan with no cost at all, or a refinance with a few thousand in closing costs. We refinanced 3 times with the home equity loan, the last one was 5%. As the 15 year regular mortgage hit 3.5%, it seemed worth the costs, about $1800, to get the low rate, and expecting that rates would go lower. The 1.5% savings on the balance put our breakeven at fewer than 6 months. If you truly meant HELOC, the variable aspect is the risk, as rates how little room down from here, but much room to rise.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5d6e2fea5acbc6cc395dbd67f2193995
|
Should the poor consider investing as a means to becoming rich?
|
[
{
"docid": "ca4a22521a8be869fa3e083cc803a2ff",
"text": "\"Definitions are in order: These definitions are important. Someone making 1,000,000 a year who spends all of it is poor. Someone who makes 500K, spends 450K a year and has three million in stocks and a paid-for million dollar home may be rich but they can't retire. They need another seven to eight million to retire. Someone with a million dollars in assets who makes 40K a year through their job, can be Financially Independent and retire. This last example is important. In The Millionaire Next Door the authors share their discovery that the average millionaire accumulated their wealth with just a working income of around 50K (the book is a bit dated so the number should be elevated if you adjust for inflation). Finance Independent is a strange thing to wrap your head around and people with high incomes often fall victim to misunderstanding it. When figuring out how much a person needs to accumulate for their \"\"nest egg\"\", their working income is not a direct variable. Their spending and savings rate are. A doctor making 500K, who spends 450K needs to work for 51 years if they are planning to keep spending 450K/year (adjusted for inflation) forever. Someone making 60K starting at age 21 who saves 18K (30%), could retire at 49. Someone with a truly low income and poor, say 30K and under and living in a old developed nation, investing will help them a bit. Say they save 10% of their income, by the time they reach 65 (the typical age federal retirement pensions begin), they'll have enough money to live off of in perpetuity and in comfort. They'll actually have a higher retirement income than income while they were working. But, it is challenging at those levels to save 10% of your net income. Events like your car randomly deciding to break down one day can destroy an entire year's saving.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a91dada3a578174b74b5ac32d61e915",
"text": "\"Given that a poor person probably has much less to invest, how can odds be in their favor? To add to Lan's great answer, if one is \"\"poor\"\" because they don't have enough income to build wealth (invest), then there are only two ways to change the situation - earn more or spend less. Neither are easy but both are usually possible. One can take on side jobs, look for a better-paying career, etc. Cutting spending can also be hard but is generally easier than adding income. In general, wealth building is more about what you do with your income than about how much you make. Obviously the more you make, the easier it is, but just about anyone can build wealth if they spend less than they make. Once your NET income is high enough that you have investible income, THEN you can start building wealth. Unfortunately many people have piles of debts to clean up before they are able to get to that point. What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor anymore, right? Just having $100 is not going to make you \"\"rich\"\". There is a practical limit to how much return you can make short of high-risk activities like gambling, lottery tickets, etc. (I have actually seen this as a justification for playing the lottery, which I disagree with but is an interesting point). If you just invest $100 at 25% per year (for illustration - traditional investments typically only make 10-12% on average), in 10 years you'll have about $931. If instead you invest $100 per month at 12% annualized, in 10 years you'll have over $23,000. Not that $23,000 makes you rich - the point is that regularly saving money is much more powerful than having money to start with.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b22e23fac6f27900f195011905db3fa",
"text": "\"What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor? The first priority is an emergency fund. One of the largest expenses of poor people are short-term loans for emergencies. Being able to avoid those will likely be more lucrative than an S&P investment. Remember, just like a loan, if you use your emergency fund, you'll need to refill it. Be smart, and pay yourself 10% interest when you do. It's still less than you'd pay for a payday loan, and yet it means that after every emergency you're better prepared for the next event. To get an idea for how much you'd need: you probably own a car. How much would you spend, if you suddenly had to replace it? That should be money you have available. If you think \"\"must\"\" buy a new car, better have that much available. If you can live with a clunker, you're still going to need a few K. Having said that, the next goal after the emergency fund should be savings for the infrequent large purchases. The emergency fund if for the case where your car unexpectedly gets totaled; the saving is for the regular replacement. Again, the point here is to avoid an expensive loan. Paying down a mortgage is not that important. Mortgage loans are cheaper than car loans, and much cheaper than payday loans. Still, it would be nice if your house is paid when you retire. But here chances are that stocks are a better investment than real estate, even if it's the real estate you live in.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4211fc1afd54373a20f75de5b335e1da",
"text": "Yes, you can indeed become rich by investing even small amounts over time. Let's say that you begin with nothing invested, and you start investing $100 per week. Suppose you choose to put your money in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. The CAGR (Compound Annual Growth Rate) of the S&P 500 over the last 35 years has been about 11%. (That 35 years includes at least two fairly serious crashes.) You may get more or less than that number in the future, but let's guess that you'll average 9%. 35 years from now, you would be a millionaire ($1.2 Million, actually). This math works out for anyone, no matter who your parents are, where you are from, where you went to school, etc. Yes, you have a better chance of becoming wealthy the more you invest, the longer you have to stay invested, and the better choices you make in your investments. By starting early, you will maximize your time invested, which allows you the flexibility to be more conservative in your investments and to invest smaller amounts. But for those with a shorter time to invest, it is still doable for most people. Get your financial life under control by eliminating your debt, setting a household budget, and investing for the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1e7f772ced48852837068b40ff5770",
"text": "Investments earn income relative to the principal amounts invested. If you do not have much to invest, then the only way to 'get rich' by investing is to take gambles. And those gambles are more likely to fail than succeed. The simplest way for someone without a high amount of 'capital' [funds available to invest] to build wealth, is to work more, and invest in yourself. Go to school, but only for proven career paths. Take self-study courses. Learn and expand your career opportunities. Only once you are stable financially, have minimal debt [or, understand and respect the debt you plan to pay down slowly, which some people choose to do with school and house debt], and are able to begin contributing regularly to investment plans, can you put your financial focus on investing. Until then, any investment gains would pale in comparison to gains from building your career.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f0d832f5d7b871a5be90f876c28da0d",
"text": "A cautionary tale: About 25 years ago I decided that I should try my hand at investing in some technology companies. I was in the computer biz but decided that I might suffer from myopia there, so I researched some medical startups. And I did some reasonably good research, given the available resources (the Internet was quite primitive). I narrowed things down to 4-5 companies, studying their technology plans, then researched their business plans and their personnel. In the end I picked a drug company. Not only did it have a promising business plan, but it had as it's CEO a hotshot from some other company, and the BOD was populated buy big names from tech companies and the like. AND the company had like $2 of cash for every $1 of outstanding share value, following their recent IPO. So I sold a bit of stock I had in my employer and bought like $3000 worth of this company. Then, taking the advice I'd seen several places, I forgot about it for about 6 months. When I went back to look their stock value had dropped a little, and the cash reserves were down about 20%. I wasn't too worried. 6 months later the cash was down 50%. Worrying a little. After I'd had the stock for about 2 years the stock price was about 10% of what I'd paid. Hardly worth selling, so I hung on for awhile longer. The company was eventually sold to some other company and I got maybe $50 in stock in the new company.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f27a6c6c9dcf94808d2a9ebbab865880",
"text": "What could a small guy with $100 do to make himself not poor To answer the question directly, not much. Short of investing in something at the exact moment before it goes bananas, then reinvesting into a bigger stock and bigger etc, it's super high risk. A better way is to sacrifice some small things, less coffee, less smokes, less going out partying so that instead of having $100, you have $100 a week. This puts you into a situation where you can save enough to become a deposit on an appreciating asset (choose your own asset class, property in AU for me). Take out a loan for as much as you can for your $100 a week payment and make it interest only with an offset against it, distributions from shares can either be reinvested or put into the offset or in the case of property, rent can be put against the offset, pretty soon you end up with a scenario where you have cash offsetting a loan down to nothing but you still have access to the cash, invest into another place and revalue your asset, you can take out any equity that has grown and put that also into your offset. Keep pulling equity and using the money from the offset as deposits on other assets (it kind of works really well on property) and within 15 years you can build an empire with a passive income to retire on. The biggest thing the rich guys get that the poor guys don't is that debt is GOOD, use someone else's money to buy an appreciating asset then when you pay it back eventually, you own the growth. Use debt to buy more debt for exponential growth. Of course, you need to also invest your time to research what you are investing in, you need to know when you make the decision to buy that it will appreciate, it's no good just buying off a tip, you may as well drop your money on the horses if you want to play it like that. Fortunately, one thing we all have in common regardless of our money is time, we have time which we can invest.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "2b55cb9e78c31050015cd70d9138888c",
"text": "This is certainly possible. There are lots of strategies that involve taking out loans to invest. However, they are all high risk strategies. There's a school district for a major US city that was able to get incredibly favorable loan terms because their repayment was assured by law. They borrowed a bunch of money and put it into a variety of sure things insured by reliable companies like Lehman Brothers. You can figure out the rest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "298e494e9db9f6e09526f92efc543b46",
"text": "\"These people used the money they received to invest in their business enterprises. As we all know, investments of the wealthy \"\"trickle down\"\" to the poor. If that money had actually gone to poor people they would have spent it on drink and gambling. These people should be commended, not punished.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48c7686df6d9e8717883ccc9746a4972",
"text": "\"> The long-run goal is to eliminate poverty through wealth creation. If that makes for some weird new social interactions, I'd say that's a reasonable cost. Yes, I agree but there's a problem if we \"\"allow\"\" income inequality to become so rampant it causes macro-geopolitical issues. I'm not sure how that would be solved, it seems almost inherent in a captalistic model. I suppose mitigating rent seeking in favour of actual wealth creation and spreading meritocracy in proportion rather than exponentiality might be a start. The current wave of green energy, climate change and focus on health might be an indirect mitigating factor to this. Perhaps the limitation of land is the *real* issue. Space colonization would be an interesting scenario but there's likely a lot of time before that happens. > I mention comparing to earlier periods simply as a measure of progress to determine whether or not there is a problem that needs correction, such as a specific group in society experiencing real wage stagnation, or truly anemic growth rates relative to earlier periods. It's the slope of the trend line for each group that I'd be worried about, where linear or exponential is good, and logarithmic should indicate a potential crisis. That actually makes sense. > Ultimately, I believe that it's not a persons absolute circumstances that matter, but the rate at which those circumstances are improving throughout their lives that most strongly affects their subjective well-being (but that's just my theory). I have not read enough in both economics or human psychology to really have an opinion on this but so far, I would lean towards an agreement. > As for real estate costs, you're absolutely correct that this is a problem, but it's as easily explainable problem. Supply is artificially constrained in most of the US due to the need for explicit government permission (in the form of building permits and zoning laws) in order to build new units. Basic economics says that when supply is artificially restricted, prices will rise. I'm on the fence on this issue because real estate is based on rent seeking and promotion of debt slavery. While I won't argue against the principle of government restriction -> higher prices, what exactly keeps private interests from raising living cost as high as it can? Even in the developed world people spend as much as half of their income on rent / mortgage alone. Other than competition of course but in a high competitive area the incentive is to eat up market share. The laws of accumulation would then argue that in the end a few, large institutions would own the majority of residential homes and living apartments. They can now set their own prices and that will, in effect, be as bad as government regulation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89027dae39e2b8fc85a969a574124174",
"text": "And most wealth is squandered by the third generation. Someone has to become independently wealthy for the cycle to start over. Many will read this headline and use it as an excuse for their own lack of will to succeed. Someone had to succeed independently at some point, to earn the original wealth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c62a9ef6ddf8a9f66d4ec1c669245f41",
"text": "\"Basically, unless you are an investment professional, you should not be investing in a venture in a developing country shown to you by someone else. The only time you should be investing in a developing country is if a \"\"lightbulb\"\" goes off in your head and you say to yourself, \"\"With my engineering background, I can develop this machine/process/concept that will work better in this country than anywhere else in the world.\"\" And then run it yourself. (That's what Michael Dell, a computer repairman, did for \"\"made to order\"\" computers in the United States, and \"\"the rest is history.\"\") E.g. if you want to invest in \"\"real estate\"\" in a developing country, you might design a \"\"modular home\"\" out of local materials, tailored to local tastes, and selling for less than local equivalents, based on a formula that you know better than anyone else in the world. And then team up with a local who can sell it for you. Whatever you do, don't \"\"invest\"\" and revisit it in 10-15 years. It will be gone.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "978c0dd4a602d6f7794dd738427dd574",
"text": "\"Following these rules will help a poor person have a better chance to climb out of poverty or avoid poverty. Not finishing high school isn't going to help them find a good job. Having children as a teenager isn't going to put a poor person into the middle class. Having children without being married and having a full time job isn't going to solve poverty, but make it worse. You call these rules \"\"middle class values\"\" as if it is a bad thing, and speak of them as an imposition. Well, breaking these rules is pretty much a ticket to generational poverty.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6fa5a426d04b3a740e11df187ede9c6",
"text": "Indeed. And why should we incentivize careers that contribute to the good of mankind as opposed to careers that prey on mankind. I'm with you. If you want to help people, fuck you, be a poor. If you don't want to be a poor, start a hedge fund and destroy the economy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab0a3f05dcbf817372389423130d9638",
"text": "\"It's an interesting point that leaves me conflicted. In some sense being poor also means you are not going to get the same education, or the same value from education made available to you. On the other hand, education seems to be universally empowering, and therefore we try to make it universally available. If the same is true of various enhancements, should we not make them also universally available? For me the \"\"if\"\" is still too big.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810598d503a4143d26ca148267fdc063",
"text": "The average inflation rate in the US over the last 17 years is 2.17% per year. source So he has $30,000 now. If another 3 years go by and he doesnt invest it in anything whatsoever, he would have 30,000/(1.0217^3) = $28,128 equivalent buying power 3 years from now. I would not focus on how much money he is losing per year, but instead focus on the religious constraint of not gaining interest. What was the intent of the religious prophet or person who was discussing this issue? If he invested the money with a 1% interest rate, and split the profit down the middle, half of it for his savings and half of it given to a charity of his choice, would that be something that would be likely to change his behavior? Consider this approach if you're trying to help someone to understand the ramifications of a financial.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3920dc7fad00ba1d6cb961f24716c96a",
"text": "Yes, because you cannot have an exponential growth rate that is faster than the rate at which the economy grows on the long term. 100% growth is much more than the few percent at which the economy grows, so your share in the World economy would approximately double every year. Today the value of all the assets in the World economy is about $200 trillion. If you start with an investment of just $1000 and this doubles every year, then you'll own all the World's assets in 37.5 years, assuming this doesn't grow. You can, of course, take into account that it does grow, this will yield a slightly larger time before you own the entire World.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94e274d66650337c888a371d404e2d7b",
"text": "People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a424b24c9f21bbd6cced1d51b841b70",
"text": "buying real estate is for people with sufficient financial resources to cover market downturns. Please read about the 2008 real estate market. Investing in real estate when you are a poor college student is a sure way to become a bankrupt college student. A single word answer to your question: No. Not reasonable. Your best investment is completing college with as little debt as possible and the most practical experience in the market area you are interested in entering.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2900a922d243bb2b0282f4fcec6579b",
"text": "\"no way -- he suggests that if you don't have an edge, no one needs to play the game. He doesn't like the idea of a \"\"lesser bad\"\" way to invest (MPT). If you do decide to get involved in investing, then it's about absolute performance, not relative. He believes that the whole relative performance thing -- beating some arbitrary benchmark -- is just an artificial construct.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c63bf814d5fbb4cc00f26a93771acf2",
"text": "You add the wash sale loss to your cost basis for the other transaction so you would have two entries in your schedule d reporting 1.) Listing the $2000 loss as a wash 2.) The cost basis for your second transaction is thus $1000+$2000 = $3000 so when it was sold for $2000 you now have a reportable loss of $1000. For more information see here.... http://www.ehow.com/how_5313540_calculate-wash-sale.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "054ecd42afa51caf2182f0869bccc846",
"text": "Ok thanks for this. I am curious, how would they know its facebook that is directing these increased sales. If it's TV or radio, you can tell by increased revenues from increased spots. But for a facebook ad or a google ad, unless this is the only form of marketing, how are you sure (unless again you can ask, did you hear from us by google or fb) its from one of these websites. My thinking was for a physical product when i made this comment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
09b5a784571ba6a0ab98832b4d72cc7b
|
How does compounding of annual interest work?
|
[
{
"docid": "481708893828cf324c2970066f90a2ed",
"text": "The general concept is that your money will grow at an accelerating rate because you start getting interest paid on your returns in addition to the original investment. As a simple example, assume you invest $100 and get 10% interest per year paid annually. -At the end of the first year you have your $100 + $10 interest for a total of $110. -So you start the second year with $110 and so 10% would be $11 for a total of $121. -The third year you start with $121 so 10% would be $12.10 for a total of $133.10 See how the amount it goes up each year increases? If we were talking a higher initial amount or a larger number of years that can really add up. That is essence is compound interest. Most of the complicated looking formulas you see out there for compound interest are just shortcuts so you don't have to iteratively go through the above exercise a bunch of times to find out how much you would have after some number of years. This formula tells you how much you would have(A) after a certain number of years(t) at a given interest rate(r) assuming they pay interest n times per year, for example you would use 12 for n if it paid interest monthly instead of yearly. P represents the amount you started out with. If you keep investing monthly (as shown in your example) instead of just depositing it and letting it sit, you have to use a more complicated formula. Finance people refer to this as calculating the future value of an annuity. That formula looks like this: A = PMT [((1 + r)N - 1) / r] x (1+r) A : Is the amount you would have at the end of the time period. N : The number of compounding periods (months if you get interest calculated monthly) PMT : The total amount you are putting in each period (N) r: Just like before, the interest rate you are getting paid. Be sure to adjust this to a monthly number if N represents months (divide APR by 12)* *Most interest rates are quoted as APR, which is the annualized interest rate not counting compounding. Don't confuse this with APY, which has compounding built into it and is not appropriate for use in this formula. Inserting your example: r (monthly interest rate) = 15% APR / 12 = .0125 n = 30 years * 12 months/year = 360 months A = $150 x [((1 + .0125)360 - 1) / .0125] x (1+.0125) A = $1,051,473.09 (rounded)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93ff171447e94d9552f117611a7bcb19",
"text": "Here's how I have worked it out. Different answer to the one expected. Pretty sure it's right though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "262372682997023c76573fcb5ffb66e6",
"text": "Firstly, it should be noted that the period of the investment is all of the years 2007 to 2017 inclusive. This totals (temporarily removing one shoe and sock to extend counting range) 11 years! Not the 9 of the OP and the accepted answer... Secondly, there are various definitions of average rate of return. One would be : What constant annual rate of return, compounded annually, will yield the same result as the given investment? Unfortunately, this results in an equation that cannot be solved by ordinary algebraic methods. If r is the desired annual rate, then the equation is: (1+r)^11 * 10000 = 14567 Using logarithms: log(1 + r) = log(1.4567)/11 r = 3.4789%",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2bd9006e9a20a0e1dc3f3c9a12f58033",
"text": "Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "26821c66dd72cf208a64336d6b63caa5",
"text": "I've found the systems that seem to work. Firstly, you need to find how much money is required to pay for the withdrawals after retirement, while still accruing interest. I couldn't seem to do this with an equation, but this bit of javascript worked: yearsToLast: Number of years of yearly withdrawals yearlyWithdrawal: Amount to withdraw each year interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest Now that we have how much is required at the beginning of the retirement, to figure out how much to add yearly to hit this mark, you'd use: amount: Previously found required amount to reach interest: Decimal form of yearly compounding interest yearsSaving: Number of years saving till amount needs to be hit I hope this helps some other poor soul, because I could find squat on how to do this. Max",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b43f330c145b3509335301b690bd3eb",
"text": "There is no interest outstanding, per se. There is only principal outstanding. Initially, principal outstanding is simply your initial loan amount. The first two sections discuss the math needed - just some arithmetic. The interest that you owe is typically calculated on a monthly basis. The interested owed formula is simply (p*I)/12, where p is the principal outstanding, I is your annual interest, and you're dividing by 12 to turn annual to monthly. With a monthly payment, take out interest owed. What you have left gets applied into lowering your principal outstanding. If your actual monthly payment is less than the interest owed, then you have negative amortization where your principal outstanding goes up instead of down. Regardless of how the monthly payment comes about (eg prepay, underpay, no payment), you just apply these two calculations above and you're set. The sections below will discuss these cases in differing payments in detail. For a standard 30 year fixed rate loan, the monthly payment is calculated to pay-off the entire loan in 30 years. If you pay exactly this amount every month, your loan will be paid off, including the principal, in 30 years. The breakdown of the initial payment will be almost all interest, as you have noticed. Of course, there is a little bit of principal in that payment or your principal outstanding would not decrease and you would never pay off the loan. If you pay any amount less than the monthly payment, you extend the duration of your loan to longer than 30 years. How much less than the monthly payment will determine how much longer you extend your loan. If it's a little less, you may extend your loan to 40 years. It's possible to extend the loan to any duration you like by paying less. Mathematically, this makes sense, but legally, the loan department will say you're in breach of your contract. Let's pay a little less and see what happens. If you pay exactly the interest owed = (p*I)/12, you would have an infinite duration loan where your principal outstanding would always be the same as your initial principal or the initial amount of your loan. If you pay less than the interest owed, you will actually owe more every month. In other words, your principal outstanding will increase every month!!! This is called negative amortization. Of course, this includes the case where you make zero payment. You will owe more money every month. Of course, for most loans, you cannot pay less than the required monthly payments. If you do, you are in default of the loan terms. If you pay more than the required monthly payment, you shorten the duration of your loan. Your principal outstanding will be less by the amount that you overpaid the required monthly payment by. For example, if your required monthly payment is $200 and you paid $300, $100 will go into reducing your principal outstanding (in addition to the bit in the $200 used to pay down your principal outstanding). Of course, if you hit the lottery and overpay by the entire principal outstanding amount, then you will have paid off the entire loan in one shot! When you get to non-standard contracts, a loan can be structured to have any kind of required monthly payments. They don't have to be fixed. For example, there are Balloon Loans where you have small monthly payments in the beginning and large monthly payments in the last year. Is the math any different? Not really - you still apply the one important formula, interest owed = (p*I)/12, on a monthly basis. Then you break down the amount you paid for the month into the interest owed you just calculated and principal. You apply that principal amount to lowering your principal outstanding for the next month. Supposing that what you have posted is accurate, the most likely scenario is that you have a structured 5 year car loan where your monthly payments are smaller than the required fixed monthly payment for a 5 year loan, so even after 2 years, you owe as much or more than you did in the beginning! That means you have some large balloon payments towards the end of your loan. All of this is just part of the contract and has nothing to do with your prepay. Maybe I'm incorrect in my thinking, but I have a question about prepaying a loan. When you take out a mortgage on a home or a car loan, it is my understanding that for the first years of payment you are paying mostly interest. Correct. So, let's take a mortgage loan that allows prepayment without penalty. If I have a 30 year mortgage and I have paid it for 15 years, by the 16th year almost all the interest on the 30 year loan has been paid to the bank and I'm only paying primarily principle for the remainder of the loan. Incorrect. It seems counter-intuitive, but even in year 16, about 53% of your monthly payment still goes to interest!!! It is hard to see this unless you try to do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If suddenly I come into a large sum of money and decide I want to pay off the mortgage in the 16th year, but the bank has already received all the interest computed for 30 years, shouldn't the bank recompute the interest for 16 years and then recalculate what's actually owed in effect on a 16 year loan not a 30 year loan? It is my understanding that the bank doesn't do this. What they do is just tell you the balance owed under the 30 year agreement and that's your payoff amount. Your last sentence is correct. The payoff amount is simply the principal outstanding plus any interest from (p*I)/12 that you owe. In your example of trying to payoff the rest of your 30 year loan in year 16, you will owe around 68% of your original loan amount. That seems unfair. Shouldn't the loan be recalculated as a 16 year loan, which it actually has become? In fact, you do have the equivalent of a 15 year loan (30-15=15) at about 68% of your initial loan amount. If you refinanced, that's exactly what you would see. In other words, for a 30y loan at 5% for $10,000, you have monthly payments of $53.68, which is exactly the same as a 15y loan at 5% for $6,788.39 (your principal outstanding after 15 years of payments), which would also have monthly payments of $53.68. A few years ago I had a 5 year car loan. I wanted to prepay it after 2 years and I asked this question to the lender. I expected a reduction in the interest attached to the car loan since it didn't go the full 5 years. They basically told me I was crazy and the balance owed was the full amount of the 5 year car loan. I didn't prepay it because of this. That is the wrong reason for not prepaying. I suspect you have misunderstood the terms of the loan - look at the Variable Monthly Payments section above for a discussion. The best thing to do with all loans is to read the terms carefully and do the calculations yourself in a spreadsheet. If you are able to get the cashflows spelled out in the contract, then you have understood the loan.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "296356403e77d9534a168df6feeb8fe9",
"text": "\"APY stands for Annual Percentage Yield, a calculation done by the financial institution to make simple comparisons of account value after 1 year between competing accounts. The APY includes the effects of compound interest regardless of the rate of interest, so the simple answer is: no, your return is only your principle multiplied by the APY after a year. Credit Unions are more member participatory than a bank, so the name \"\"share\"\" implies that you own a share of the credit union and it's future. It's possible that the CU could elect to pay a dividend on top of your interest rate. Since you have the option to credit the dividend to the share certificate account or another place, it seems that interest would be paid on the dividends left in the SC on the compounding schedule at the contracted rate. You would have to look at the terms of the account to verify precisely when the dividend is payed, whether it's a value above and beyond the interest, and how it is compounded into our account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1dce5eef63be75b3c823856ea9c21139",
"text": "At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e5b323e00d0f3483c4b8e7f58baee9d",
"text": "Perhaps there is no single formula that accounts for all the time intervals, but there is a method to get formulas for each compound interest period. You deposit money monthly but there is interest applied weekly. Let's assume the month has 4 weeks. So you added x in the end of the first month, when the new month starts, you have x money in your account. After one week, you have x + bx money. After the second week, you have x + b(x + bx) and so on. Always taking the previous ammount of money and multiplying it by the interest (b) you have. This gives you for the end of the second month: This looks complicated, but it's easy for computers. Call it f(0), that is: It is a function that gives you the ammount of money you would obtain by the end of the second month. Do you see that the future money inputs are given with relation to the previous ones? Then we can do the following, for n>1 (notice the x is the end of the formula, it's the deposit of money in the end of the month, I'm assuming it'll pass through the compound interest only in the first week of the next month): And then write: There is something in mathematics called recurrence relation in which we can use these two formulas to produce a simplified one for arbitrary b and n. Doing it by hand would be a bit complicated, but fortunately CASes are able to do it easily. I used Wolfram Mathematica commands: And it gave me the following formula: All the work you actually have to do is to figure out what will be f(0) and then write the f(n) for n>0 in terms of f(n-1). Notice that I used the command FullSimplify in my code, Mathematica comes with algorithms for simplyfing formulas so if it didn't find something simpler, you probably won't find it by yourself! If the code looks ugly, it's because of Mathematica clipboard formatting, in the software, it looks like this: Notice that I wrote the entire formula for f(0), but as it's also a recurrence relation, it can be written as: That is: f(0)=g(4). This should give you much simpler formulas to apply in this method.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5d4da8a355958c565267ad5a2005aa7",
"text": "\"Sure, stocks don't pay interest. I just looked up the word \"\"compound\"\" in a couple of dictionaries and the relevant definition in all of them just mentioned interest and not growth in the value of stock. So it may be technically inaccurate to talk about \"\"compound growth\"\" of a stock. I'll yield to someone more knowledgeable about the technical language of finance to answer that part. But regardless of whether the word strictly applies, the concept certainly does. Suppose you put $1000 into a mutual fund and the fund grows by 10%. You now have $1100. The next year the fund grows by 15%. So you gain 15% of what? Of your original $1000? No, of your present balance, $1100. The effect is the same as compound interest. There is the fundamental difference that interest is normally a fixed rate: you get such-and-such percent a year as spelled out in a contract. But change in the value of a stock depends on many factors, none of them guaranteed.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00df1661bbb7f46e4761ef8d1b612ca9",
"text": "I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%). Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "79b730bea961def6987f5d292bed6251",
"text": "Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P*(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) for p, we get p = P*(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98f243b08477754a4db0a21dd740ad38",
"text": "The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "452f27da8e2c009b017c0b881ec4cf77",
"text": "I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbb136b3509e9c1c76c28c48ce3eba60",
"text": "\"This answer is better served as a comment but I don't have enough rep. It is not guaranteed that they 'do not accrue interest while you are a full time student'. Some student loans can capitalize the interest - before pursuing leveraged investing, be sure that your student loan is not capitalizing. https://www.salliemae.com/student-loans/manage-your-private-student-loan/understand-student-loan-payments/learn-about-interest-and-capitalization/ Capitalized interest Capitalized interest is a second reason your loan may end up costing more than the amount you originally borrowed. Interest starts to accrue (grow) from the day your loan is disbursed (sent to you or your school). At certain points in time—when your separation or grace period ends, or at the end of forbearance or deferment—your Unpaid Interest may capitalize. That means it is added to your loan’s Current Principal. From that point, your interest will now be calculated on this new amount. That’s capitalized interest.\"\" https://www.navient.com/loan-customers/interest-and-taxes/how-student-loan-interest-works/ Capitalized Interest If you accrue interest while you are in school – as with Direct Unsubsidized, FFELP Unsubsidized, Direct and FFELP PLUS Loans, and Private Loans – you will have capitalized interest if it is unpaid. Unpaid accrued interest is added to the principal amount of your loan after you leave school and finish any applicable grace period. Simply put, there will be interest to be paid on both the principal of the loan and on the interest that has already accumulated. To minimize the effects of the capitalized interest on the amount you will pay overall, you can pay the interest during college instead of waiting until after graduation. That way, you start with the original principal balance (minus any fees) when you begin repayment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f559fa60e775b9ba47eced6e74218b4",
"text": "\"Typically mutual funds will report an annualized return. It's probably an average of 8% per year from the date of inception of the fund. That at least gives some basis of comparison if you're looking at funds of different ages (they will also often report annualized 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10- year returns, which are probably better basis of comparison since they will have experience the same market booms and busts...). So yes, generally that 8% gets compounded yearly, on average. At that rate, you'd get your investment doubled in roughly 9 years... on average... Of course, \"\"past performance can't guarantee future results\"\" and all that, and variation is often significant with returns that high. Might be 15% one year, -2% the next, etc., hence my emphasis on specifying \"\"on average\"\". EDIT: Based on the Fund given in the comments: So in your fund, the times less than a year (1 Mo, 3 Mo, 6 Mo, 1 Yr) is the actual relative change that of fund in that time period. Anything greater is averaged using CAGR approach. For example. The most recent 3 year period (probably ending end of last month) had a 6.19% averaged return. 2014, 2015, and 2016 had individual returns of 8.05%, 2.47%, and 9.27%. Thus that total return over that three year period was 1.0805*1.0247*1.0927=1.21 = 21% return over three years. This is the same total growth that would be achieved if each year saw consistent 6.5% growth (1.065^3 = 1.21). Not exactly the 6.19%, but remember we're looking at a slightly different time window. But it's pretty close and hopefully helps clarify how the calculation is done.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbd62be03bb002ae46dc41aa9b2276eb",
"text": "I've been hearing storied from Germans that this is happening in Germany, too, but at the bank level. All anecdotal, people I've met telling me their personal stories, but they follow the same pattern. Go to the bank, try to take out a few grand for a vacation or large purchase, bank tells them they can't have that much and that they just have to do with less, even if the account balance covers the withdrawal.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
73773e4c4093e44bf837cc372a99218c
|
Can zero-coupon bonds go down in price?
|
[
{
"docid": "9c93201d984cd5be6fbaefd0e5f237c8",
"text": "\"Of course it can. This is a time value of money calculation. If I knew the maturity date, or current yield to maturity I'd be able to calculate the other number and advise how much rates need to rise to cause the value to drop from 18 to 17. For a 10 year bond, a rise today of .1% will cause the bond to drop about 1% in value. This is a back of napkin calculation, finance calculators offer precision. edit - when I calculate present value with 34 years to go, and 5.832% yield to maturity, I get $14.55. At 5.932, the value drops to $14.09, a drop of 3.1%. Edit - Geo asked me to show calculations. Here it goes - A) The simplest way to calculate present value for a zero coupon bond is to take the rate 5.832%, convert it to 1.05832 and divide into the face value, $100. I offer this as the \"\"four function calculator\"\" approach, so one enters $100 divided by 1.05832 and repeat for the number of years left. A bit of precision is lost if there's a fractional year involved, but it's close. The bid/ask will be wider than this error introduced. B) Next - If you've never read my open declaration of love for my Texas Instruments BA-35 calculator, here it is, again. One enters N=34 (for the years) FV = 100, Rate = 5.832, and then CPT PV. It will give the result, $14.56. C) Here is how to do it in Excel - The numbers in lines 1-3 are self evident, the equation in cell B4 is =-PV(B3/100,B1,0,B2) - please note there are tiny differences in the way to calculate in excel vs a calculator. Excel wants the rate to be .05832, so I divided by 100 in the equation cell. That's the best 3 ways I know to calculate present value. Geo, if you've not noticed, the time value of money is near and dear to me. It comes into play for bonds, mortgages, and many aspect of investing. The equations get more complex if there are payments each year, but both the BA-35 and excel are up to it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56d7c92b9925e7c7aa27486ec83d0f9a",
"text": "Certainly, yes, a zero coupon bond can go down in price. If interest rates rise before your bond matures, the price of the bond will go down – and the longer to maturity, the more it will tend to drop. Depending on when you bought and how much interest rates rise, you can incur a capital loss. The bond is guaranteed to be worth a certain amount at maturity as long as the issuer hasn't defaulted, but before maturity the market price of the bond will fluctuate, primarily based on interest rate movements. In fact, zero coupon bonds are even more interest-rate-sensitive than regular bonds (which have periodic coupon interest payments.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa30e29f8506005c072899b81da89854",
"text": "Let's say today you buy the bond issued by StateX at 18$. Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that StateX is going towards default (if it happens it won't give you back not even the 18$ you invested). You (and others that bought the same bond like you) will get scared and try to sell the bond, but a potential buyer won't buy it for 18$ anymore they will risk maximum couple of bucks, therefor the price of your bond tomorrow is worth 2$ and not 18 anymore. Bond prices (even zero coupon ones) do fluctuate like shares, but with less turbolence (i.e. on the same period of time, ups and downs are smaller in percentage compared to shares) EDIT: Geo asked in the comment below what happens to the bond the FED rises the interest. It' very similar to what I explained above. Let's say today you buy the bond just issued by US treasury at 50$. Today the FED rewards money at 2%, and the bond you bought promised you a reward of 2% per year for 10 years (even if it's zero coupon, it will give you almost the same reward of one with coupons, the only difference is that it will give you all the money back at once, that is when the bond expires). Let's say tommorow morning the TV says that FED decided to rise the interest rates, and now on it lends money rewarding a wonderful 4% to investors. US treasury will also have to issue bonds at 4%. You can obviously keep your bond until expiration (and unless US goes default you will get back all your money until the last cent), but if you decide to sell your bond, you will find out that people won't be willing to pay 50$ anymore because on the market they can now buy the same type of bond (for the same period of time, 10 years) that give them 4% per year and not a poor 2% like yours. So people will be willing to pay maximum 40$ for your bond or less.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1e538c046c14ab86ba88dc26048ac046",
"text": "\"What could happen to bonds such as these because of Detroit filing for bankruptcy? Depending on how the courts process Detroit's situation, there could be that some bonds become worthless since they are so low and the city can't pay anything on those low priority debts. Others may get pennies on the dollar. There could also be the case that some bailout comes along that makes the bonds good though I'd say that is a long shot at this point. Are these bonds done for, or will bondholders receive interest payments and eventual payment? I wouldn't suspect that they are done for in the sense of being completely worthless though at the same time, I'd be very careful about buying any of them given that they are likely to be changed a great deal. Could these bonds tend to rise over time after the bankruptcy? Yes, it is possible. If there was some kind of federal or state bailout that is done, the bonds could rise. However, that is one heck of an \"\"if\"\" as you'd need to have someone come to guarantee the bonds in a sense. What similar situations from the past might support this idea? Not that many as this is the biggest municipal bankruptcy ever, but here are a few links that may be useful as a starting point, though keep in mind Detroit's scale is part of the story as it is such a big amount being defaulted:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d029f09d556c5214bb4458699d3a32e",
"text": "Possibly you could use it as a hedging instrument if it's correlated in some way with another asset you're holding. Even though it seems you're losing money with such a bond, that loss might be less than the hedging costs associated with other instruments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1415a0c965f8ce3abe3d63f5d79c2040",
"text": "0% bonds are desirable for some individuals. It depends on your situation. 0% bonds are usually sold well below par value (eg a 100$ face value bond for 2020 might sell for 90$ today) Hence, your gains will be CAPITAL GAINS. A similar investment paying interest would be taxed as INCOME, and smaller portion of capital gains. In many countries (US, Canada) Capital gains are taxed at a more favourable rate then income. This is especially true when holding these investments in corporations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c75190c836c5e7d290322e732ade4dad",
"text": "\"No... that's just what I'm owed for letting them use my principal. If I wanted to enjoy the opportunity cost of 0% interest for 13 plus years, I'd just keep the money in my \"\"savings\"\" account (where the 8th wonder of world, miracle of compound interest no longer exists). The bigger question posited by my snark was if/when the bond market will stop trading them as legitimate paper.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7a66aad95b9c6b7ab472878f1956f3d",
"text": "This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ecfa6bb9c8b37781cfa02cab7521ce22",
"text": "Negative coupons are not the same as a negative yield. A $1000 bond that you purchase, at a premium, for $2100 that produces 10 annual coupons of $100 and a redemption of $1000 has a real, positive coupon ($100). The holder of the bond gets this coupon, and the maturity value However, you get back less than your initial investment. There is no growth; the original investment shrinks, or has a negative growth rate. Most mortgage or bond calculators choke on this situation...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e9716a7dae9d0ef47a03d0a17927d78",
"text": "Notes and Bonds sell at par (1.0). When rates go up, their value goes down. When rates go down, their value goes up. As an individual investor, you really don't have any business buying individual bonds unless you are holding them to maturity. Buy a short-duration bond fund or ETF.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3597d5686151e5780cf14fe1fd20ac7",
"text": "Perfect super clear, thank you /u/xlct2 So it is like you buy a bond for $X, start getting interest, sell bond for $X :) I was thinking there could be a possibility of a bond working like a loan from a bank, that you going paying as time goes by :D",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "a80bad42e8dcf8daf1466af64bbdc1e3",
"text": "I dont think they have much of a choice if they want to deleverage. If they do that, short and long term rates are going up whether the economy is ready for it or not. If they wait until the next recession, they'll have to buy even more bonds. They could just be moving the target up to accommodate for what they (a pro deleveraged fed) considers inevitable rate increases sure to come anyway.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238b8ff8728c9bc18c819b8167faf591",
"text": "\"TL;DR: If your currently held bond's bid yield is smaller than another bonds' ask yield. You can swap your bond for bigger returns. Let's imagine you buy a long bond for $12000 (face value of $10000) and it has 6% coupon. The cash flows will have an internal return rate of 4.37%, this is the published \"\"ask yield\"\" in 2014 of the bond. After six years, prices have fallen, inflation and yields went up. So you can sell it for only $10000. If you would do it, the IRR will be only 2.55%, so there will be less return, than if you keep it. But if you would \"\"undo\"\" the transaction, then the future cash flows would yield 6.38%. This is the \"\"bid yield\"\" in 2020 of the bond. If you can find an offer that yields more than 6.38%, you have better returns if you sell your bond and invest that $10000 in the other bond. But as other answers pointed it out, you rarely have this opportunity as the market is very effective. (Assuming everything else is equal.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8db041479ed865d53a72254769d9b90",
"text": "As the fed liquidates their fiat, the stock market will go down to zero and bonds will evaporate as their denominated in worthless paper. [The government is going to come for people's gold and seize assets](http://www.zerohedge.com/news/mark-faber-i-am-convinced-whole-derivatives-market-will-cease-exist-and-will-go-zero) Guns and canned goods are the only safe investments from here forward.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "700a832d0b1b821f98fd193c3ede2463",
"text": "On first glance it sounds to good to be true. From what I understand bridge loans are for people waiting on other loans. In this case I would presume a housing developer would take this loan if something were to go wrong and their first choice of funding went wrong. Not anything wrong with that in and of itself but the coupon is way, way too big not to draw attention. Examine the financial statements of the credit institutions and the companies they're giving credit to would be the only solution. The terms of the bond should be dictated by all information available, therefore if the return is this lucrative then there must be a large degree of risk associated with it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cba82135c4def9b57bde82806051cac8",
"text": "Next year, the Fed plans on unwinding the Bonds and MBS. They'll ramp up to $50 billion a month. At the same time we'll be selling Bonds on the market to finance the debt at a rate of $70 billion a month. I wonder who's going to have the cash to buy the Toxic MBS and the low yield Bonds they'll be unloading on top of the usual Bonds for future debt. Those Bonds will have to pay double digit rates before anyone will buy them. Future generations will just get even more screwed the way the Fed has it planned.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ec0ea7df028b05d375bd3ee26928e6",
"text": "Most reflationary policies are talking about stopping, so hopefully in 2018 the CBs will stopping buying so much. BOJ is rethinking their policy of buying treasuries when our US yields start to rise (to shrink them and protect their currency). So hopefully once we get past global QE, things can get back to a more “normal” status. As far as advice on finding value...err...good luck? [Growth of Monetary Base and M2 chart in article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part) Also look at how the money multiplier is shrinking.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
53a4f953d7b2f736133a70216e1a1e92
|
Opening 5 credit cards at once with no history to ruin, is it a good idea?
|
[
{
"docid": "5e84ad1a155299c3cc4cad8018e600cf",
"text": "\"I would not call this a \"\"good\"\" idea. But I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad idea either. Before you even consider it, you need to do a little bit of soul searching. If there is ANY chance that having multiple credit cards could entice you to spend more than you otherwise would, then this is definitely a bad idea. Avoiding temptation is the key to preventing regrettable actions (in all aspects of life). Psychoanalysis aside, let's take a mathematical approach to the question. I believe your conclusion is correct if you add some qualifiers to it: A few years from now, then your credit score will probably be higher than if you just had 1 credit card. Here are some other things to consider: And, saving the best for last: As for the hard inquiries, they should only have an effect on your credit score for 1 year (though they can be seen on your report for 2 years). Final thought: if you decide to do this (and I personally don't recommend it), I would keep the number of applications smaller (3-5 instead of 10-15). I also would only choose cards that have no annual fee. Try to choose 1 card that has 1-2% cash back and make that your regular card.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "aad16be384b6db3f82f18855c2068719",
"text": "Yes, this is definitely possible. You can optimize your credit worthiness within 18 months, you would first start with a secured credit card just to establish a little bit of credit history and then use that as a jumping point 6 months later to do several unsecured credit card applications. As a student, your primary limiting factor will be your truthful income when you apply for the cards, resulting in low limits, where using less than 30% of those limits is not a useful amount of money. Your credit scores can be looked at as a spendable balance. New inquiries spend some of that balance, low utilization earns you more of the balance. They will trend upwards with the right approach, and you can use the balance at their highs to time more inquiries. Note: My answers typically differ in that I narrowly tailor my answers to the question asked, and don't masquerade or acknowledge the idea of advice. Impulsive spenders with credit have bad credit, I can live with that.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "f226011def59447bb6d6e392fde76909",
"text": "If your accounts have an overdraft facility, then every open account is classed as available credit which has a negative effect on your credit score. It's not normally a major concern but it is a factor. (nb. this definitely applies to the UK, maybe not where you are)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9db5f2bb069cd14d9733940060d165ac",
"text": "\"The biggest (but still temporary) ding you'll see on your credit score from opening a new account is from the low average (and low minimum) account age. This will have a stronger effect than the hard pull of the credit report, which is still a factor (but not much of one if you only have 1-2 pulls in the past couple years). Having a lower average account age increases your risk to lenders. Your average will go up by one month per month, and each time you open an account it will suffer a drop proportional to the number of accounts you already had open before. So if you want to have a more \"\"solid\"\" credit score that stays strong in the face of new accounts in the future, it's better to open a few more accounts now (assuming you can ride out the temporary drop in score and aren't planning to go e.g. mortgage-shopping in the very near future). Having an additional line of credit will also likely cause your credit card utilization (total balance / total credit limit, expressed as a percentage) to decrease, which would tend to increase your credit score, counteracting the age factor, unless your utilization is already extremely low (which it probably is given your monthly account payoffs). There are various credit score simulators out there, from places that show you your credit score, and you can put in a hypothetical new card account to see the immediate likely impact for your particular situation. You identified other costs, such as risk of fraud and fees. You should check your statements once in a while even if you're not using the card, just to make sure no one else is. The bit of additional time required for this is a nonzero cost of having an open credit card account. So is the additional hassle of dealing with having the card stolen etc. if you carry it in your wallet and your wallet's stolen. If you have an account with zero activity for some number of years, the bank may close it automatically and that can reflect negatively on a credit report (as a bank closure of the account, the reason is often obscured). Check your terms and conditions and/or have some activity every so often to prevent this from happening. Some of the otherwise most attractive credit cards have monthly or annual fees, which will cost you, and you won't want to close those because it would then reduce your credit score (e.g. by reducing the total available credit and increasing your utilization percentage) - so the solution is don't apply for credit cards that have monthly/annual fees. There are plenty of good cards without those fees. With a credit score that high, you can get cards that have some very good benefits and rewards programs, as well as some with great introductory offers. Though I'm not familiar with details of Amazon's offer, $80 cash up-front with nothing else seems unlikely to be among your best options. I would think that for at least some of the fee-free cards available to you, the benefits exceed the costs, and you could \"\"cash in\"\" some of the benefits of your good credit record to get those benefits (i.e. this is one of those things you work hard to build good credit for), while also building your long-term reputation for repayment reliability. Also be aware as you shop around for cards that credit card companies pay fairly high referral fees to websites that send customers their way, so if you want you can think about who you're supporting when you click the link that takes you to an application you complete, and choose to support a site you think is providing a useful consumer-focused service. As factors affecting your credit score in addition to payment history (i.e. making regular payments as agreed on the new account will help you), Equifax lists:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9fecda5c09eae6f09dcb6d8253125323",
"text": "If you have the money and the determination to pay off all the cards in six months, then the order will make little difference to your credit score, and to your finances. If you had less money available (say you could pay off $500 a month in total), then it would be good for financial reasons to pay off the credit card with the highest interest rate first, so you pay less interest. It would be good for psychological reasons to pay the card with the smallest amount first (so you feel successful quickly, and some people need that feeling of success to continue paying off, just psychological). And if these things contradict each other, figure out what is more important. And whatever you do, paying back your debt is better than not paying it back. So if you can't make up your mind, then you pay #1, then #2, then #3, then #4, then #5.",
"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": "5fc083d123368ec99df5ecda0132fdf5",
"text": "If you are planning to get new cards, it is probably best to open the accounts as soon as possible to start establishing a history of good credit use. You might also wish to open multiple accounts so that future lines will have less of an impact on your average age of open credit lines. Since you will probably have higher interest rates it is also advisable never to carry a balance on any of your newly acquired cards. This will prevent a recurrence of the problems you are now trying to recover from.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e12985a2b089ca2dbf9acd99f2efcad",
"text": "Your plan will work to increase your total credit capacity (good for your credit score) and reduce your utilization (also good). As mentioned, you will need to be careful to use these cards periodically or they will get closed, but it will work. The question is whether this will help you or not. In addition to credit capacity and utilization, your credit score looks at things like These factors may hurt you as you continue to open accounts. You can easily get to the stage where your score is not benefitting much from increased capacity and it is getting hurt a lot by pulls and low average age. BTW you are correct that closing accounts generally hurts your score. It probably reduces average age, may reduce maximum age, reduces your capacity, and increases your utilization.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4abf089392937ac6b206358fd01f1bd8",
"text": "Closing a credit card decreases your total available balance, which can have a small negative effect if that credit card is a significant portion of your available credit. If it is not, then it likely will have little impact on your credit in that department. However, the case you explained - get a card, use it for a short while, then dump it - won't have much long-term impact to your available credit, since you will end up with the same amount as you started. The second factor will be the average age of accounts. This will affect you both in the short and long term, if you've had accounts open for a fairly long time, but won't impact you much if your credit history is fairly short. Even closed accounts affect the Average Age of Accounts for FICO scores (but not for some other scoring methods such as VantageScore). If you have only one other account, and it was 10 years old, then opening and closing this decreases your average age of accounts from 10 to 5 years - a significant hit which will not go away for years (10+ years in some cases, though usually 7 years). This will lower your score some. If you have had a lot of accounts, though (including things like mortgage, student loan, etc.), this won't have as significant of an impact, and if you had a short history in the first place, it won't hurt you much either. The third factor will be the hard credit pull. That will have a small negative impact for around six months; so don't do this just before getting a mortgage, but mostly this won't be a significant impactor for you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9be0004f5f7cefe478ac7e9dc888bd62",
"text": "\"The short answer is no, it's probably not ok. The longer answer is, it might be, if you are very disciplined. You need to make sure that you have enough money to pay off the card after a year, and that you pay the card on time, every month, without exception. There may also be balance transfer or other fees that only make it worth while if the interest rate or balance on the other loan is high. The problem is most of these offers will raise your rates to very high levels (think 20% or more) if you are even one day late with one payment. Some of them also will back charge you interest starting from day one, although I have only seen this on store credit \"\"one year, same as cash\"\" type offers. In the end you need to balance the possible payoff against how much it will cost you if you do it wrong. Remember, the banks are not in the business of lending out free money. They wouldn't do this unless enough people didn't pay it back in one year for them to make a profit.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffcd05e21d93a82f19cefb9df06b032f",
"text": "\"I'd say close them if they have fees, if you're worried about fraud or if you're going to be tempted to use them. It may have an affect on your credit rating, but it shouldn't hurt you seriously. Having too many cards gives you the \"\"opportunity\"\" to overspend, which obviously isn't good.\"",
"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": "d4b1183f1d3b66ff43bccc63bd214d7e",
"text": "\"Ditto Nate Eldredge in many ways, but let me add some other thoughts. BTW there are not four types of account, but five. You're forgetting equity, also called capital. Would it be possible to design an accounting system that does not have 5 types of accounts, maybe is simpler in other ways, and is internally consistent and logical? I'm sure it is. But what's the advantage? As Nate points out, the existing system has been in use for hundreds of years. Lots of people know how it works and understand it. I'd add: People have long since worked out how to deal with all the common situations and 99% of the odd cases you're likely to hit. If you invent your own system, you're starting from scratch. You'd have to come up with conventions to handle all sorts of situations. How do I record buying a consumable with cash? How do I record buying a capital asset with credit? How do I record paying off debts? How do I record depreciation? Etc etc. If you worked at it long and hard enough and you're a reasonably bright guy, maybe you could come up with solutions to all the problems. But why? If you were approaching this saying, \"\"I see these flaws in the way accounting is done today. I have an idea for a new, better way to do accounting\"\", I'd say good luck, you have a lot of work ahead of you working out all the details to make a fully functioning system, and then persuading others to use it, but if you really do have a better idea, maybe you can revolutionize the world of accounting. But, \"\"The present system is too much trouble and I don't want to bother to learn it\"\" ... I think that's a mistake. The work involved in inventing your own system is going to end up being way more than what it would take to learn the existing system. As to, Aren't liabilities a lot like assets? Well, in a sense I suppose. A credit card is like a checking account in that you can use it to pay for things. But they're very different, too. From an accounting point of view, with a checking account you buy something and then the money is gone, so there's one transaction: reduce cash and increase office supplies or whatever. But with a credit card there has to be a second transaction, when you pay off the charge: So, step 1, increase debt and increase office supplies; step 2, decrease debt and decrease cash. Credit cards charge interest, well you don't pay interest to use your own cash. Etc. One of the beauties of double-entry book-keeping is that every transaction involves a debit and a credit of equal amounts (or a set of debits and credits where the total of the debits equals the total of the credits). If you combine assets and liabilities into, whatever you call it, \"\"balance accounts\"\" say, then some transactions would involve a matching debit and credit while others would involve a positive debit and a matching negative debit and no credit. I'm sure you could make such a system work, but one of the neat built-in protections against error is lost. There's a very logical distinction between things that you have or that others owe you, and things that you owe to others. It makes a lot of sense to want to list them separately and manage them separately. I think you'd pretty quickly find yourself saying, \"\"well, we have two types of balance accounts, those that represent things we have and which normally have positive balances, which we list on chart A, and those that represent things we owe and which normally have negative balances, which we list on chart B\"\". And before you know it you've just reinvented assets and liabilities.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33017be05955f80f7df293a5ded9155c",
"text": "\"You should never close a credit card account unless it has an annual fee or you are overspending on it. Open lines of credit - even un-utilized ones - have a positive effect on your credit score. First of all, they increase your total credit which helps your score. Second of all, they are always \"\"paid on-time\"\" which is another benefit. Finally, they increase the length of your credit history. You can keep unused credit cards forever in your drawer. They are rarely closed due to inactivity and cost you nothing. However, if your card has an annual fee, you should close it. The potential loss to your credit score is unlikely to offset the annual fee.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39f6c48c7af1810a0a19a134191176db",
"text": "I have a fair number of cards floating around some reasons I have opened multiple accounts. I am not saying that it is for everyone but there are valid scenarios where multiple credit cards can make sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69972764b24f7e26ef9ebfed92a062e7",
"text": "You want to have 2-4 credit cards, with a credit utilization ratio below 30%. If you only have 2 cards, closing 1 would reduce your credit diversity and thus lower your credit score. You also want at least 2 years credit history, so closing an older credit card may shorten your credit history, again lowering your credit score. You want to keep around at least 1-2 older cards, even if they are not the best. You have 4 cards: But having 2-4 cards (you have 4) means you can add a 5th, and then cancel one down to 4, or cancel one down to 3 and then add a 4th, for little net effect. Still, there will be effect, as you have decreased the age of your credit, and you have opened new credit (always a ding to your score). Do you have installment loans (cars), you mention a new mortgage, so you need to wait about 3 months after the most recent credit activity to let the effects of that change settle. You want both spouses to have separate credit cards, and that will increase the total available to 4-8. That would allow you to increase the number of benefits available.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8d2165cf9b5f612c3205f2a984a49d0d",
"text": "You mentioned you have a bunch of credit cards with no balance, while others have fairly high balances I would not recommend you to close the 0 balance credit cards if they have lower APR. You can transfer the balance to those cards with lower APR. Now, if those 0 balance cards do not have lower APR, closing them will reduce my overall balance and hurt my credit rating and that is true, assume that you mean overall credit line instead of overall balance. But to my understanding, if you keep the payments good and on time, that effect is only temporary, and therefore you can definitely close them. Don't forget, paying off your balance can also lower your utilization rate and therefore increase your credit ratings, and you can focus more on that instead. Also larger number of accounts with amounts owed can indicate higher risk of over-extension, therefore you should pay off your low balance accounts first, and do not open new credit accounts until you have paid off the current balance.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
32ffd168ee3213b81f2e010a8019d367
|
First time homeowner and getting a mortgage?
|
[
{
"docid": "85b29fb9f21e2f7238927cc9b7d31b6e",
"text": "If you have good credit, you already know the rate -- the bank has it posted in the window. If you don't have good credit, tell the loan officer your score. Don't have them run your credit until you know that you're interested in that bank. Running an application or prequal kicks off the sales process, which gets very annoying very quickly if you are dealing with multiple banks. A few pointers: You're looking for a plain vanilla 30 year loan, so avoid mortgage brokers -- they are just another middleman who is tacking on a cost. Brokers are great when you need more exotic loans. Always, always stay away from mortgage brokers (or inspectors or especially lawyers) recommended by realtors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1053ceda7ea5537d3cd9d4d5efc044",
"text": "First of all, think of anyone you know in your circle locally who may have gotten a mortgage recently. Ask him, her, or them for a recommendation on what brokers they found helpful and most of all priced competitively. Second of all, you may consider asking a real estate agent. Note that this is generally discouraged because agents sometimes (and sometimes justifiably) get a bad reputation for doing anything to get themselves the highest commission possible, and so folks want to keep the lender from knowing the agent. Yet if you have a reputable, trustworthy agent, he or she can point you to a reputable, trustworthy broker who has been quoting your agent's other clients great rates. Third of all, make sure to check out the rates at places you might not expect - for example, any credit unions you or your spouse might have access to. Credit unions often offer very competitive rates and fees. After you have 2-3 brokers lined up, visit them all within a short amount of time (edit courtesy of the below comments, which show that 2 weeks has been quoted but that it may be less). The reason to visit them close together is that in the pre-approval process you will be getting your credit hard pulled, which means that your score will be dinged a bit. Visiting them all close together tells the bureaus to count all the hits as one new potential credit line instead of a couple or several, and so your score gets dinged less. Ask about rates, fees (they are required by law to give you what is called a Good Faith Estimate of their final fees), if pre-payment of the loan is allowed (required to re-finance or for paying off early), alternative schedules (such as bi-weekly or what a 20 year mortgage rate might be), the amortization schedule for your preferred loan, and ask for references from past clients. Pick a broker not only who has the best rates but also who appears able to be responsive if you need something quickly in order to close on a great deal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd28cbf9d3e43fb4904a41b6e0d9ae7e",
"text": "Check with you local bank where you have an account. Sometimes they can offer a discount that results in a good rate. I just refinanced a month ago with Bank Of America and their rates were very competitive. What set them aside from the rest was their low closing fees. Otherwise I would shop around on bankrate.com and it will show you results of both local and online mortgage brokers. It will list the rates and expected fees. The also list an average national rate so you can compare the rate you are considering and see if there could be a better deal elsewhere.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ab53e43975b4fa2a9b46afa695c6079",
"text": "Make sure you shop around and ask a lot of places for a good faith estimate. Last I knew, the good faith document is the same everywhere and long form that makes it easy enough to compare the hard numbers from place to place. I have gotten several estimates for various scenarios and I have had them hand written and printed. (I discounted the hand written ones because that broker seemed pretty disorganized in general) Learn the terms online, and start comparing. Use the good faiths as a negotiation tool to get lower rates or lower costs from other brokers. See how accurate the person is at listening to you and filling out the paperwork. See how responsive they are to you when you call with questions and want some changes. Check with at least four places. The more places you shop, the better idea you will have of what fees are high and what interest rates are low. I might pay a higher fee to get a lower interest rate, so there are lots of trade offs to consider.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ec20896f13125ca01405125cbd24a8e7",
"text": "I second the suggestions for your local credit union and asking co-workers who might also be in the process of a home purchase. Additionally, you want to educate yourself as much as possible so that you can ask questions about the calculations responsible for the differences. I got different values starting from the various online automatic quotes all the way through to the GFE and it was not obvious to me. You can also sign-up for free workshops for first time home buyers, though most of the material will be a breeze it helps you get worksheets going and lists going for documentation that you need to gather. You might want to start at the HUD site and explore. Especially the Borrower's Rights. The cost booklet was very helpful for me to interpret the GFE, but honestly I didn't appreciate it the first time it was handed to me. Finally, you might meet qualifications to take advantage of FHA programs; the waitlists discourage everyone including the loan brokers, but you want to at least be aware of programs that can help.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4224baa1404950971eeb2d436c65719a",
"text": "\"The first issue you'll find is that if you aren't going to immediately live in the house as a primary residence, this property counts as a \"\"second home\"\" or \"\"investment property\"\". You'll generally pay a higher interest rate, have a larger down payment, and qualify for less government-backed programs/incentives/subsidies than you would otherwise. The lending criteria on such properties is always more strict - and generally more costly - than an equivalent primary residence. Lenders won't really care that in 10 years you or your parents plan to move in - you can't be held to that, so they'll generally ignore that plan entirely. On a related note, you should be aware that insurance for the property will also generally cost more, but you'd need to get quotes to determine if that is at all significant in your situation. You'll need to talk with a few potential lenders, but from a first read it sounds like it would be best \"\"storied\"\" like so: you and your parents want to buy a 2nd home or vacation home, which you'll share the use of (vacations, etc, and being converted to a primary residence later). It'll need to be clear what plan to use the property for - if you intend to rent out the home in the interim years then instead make that clear and state it will be an investment home; if it is what you are planning it might make it easier, as expected rent for the property will be considered. Saying you want a mortgage for a home no one will live in for a decade probably isn't a good idea, as a general plan anyway. Either way, this can be called a \"\"joint mortgage\"\". When I was a loan officer we didn't use that term, but it's basically just a mortgage application with multiple people on it, all of whom are combined together to qualify for the loan. Everyone's income, debts, assets, and credit get included, which can work or one person's situation can cause the whole thing to collapse. From your description I think this could work for you, and one option is to set it up where only one of the parents is on the application if the other parent has problematic credit situation. Note that his possibility is often restricted by local law, so it may not be an option for you in your jurisdiction, but worth being aware of. An alternative is you just buy the property and the parents gift you the down payment, and you list them as beneficiaries in will/trust in case something happens to you before they retire, but I don't know if that would make any sense in your situation. This is a single applicant mortgage, and it means only you are considered as buying it, which sometimes is the only option depending on your parents current financial situation. It's usually something you try if the other option doesn't work, but it's a fallback plan. Some lenders will allow guarantors (co-signers in US parlance), but this will vary by lender and locale - often what they actually want is a joint mortgage, not really a guarantor/cosigner. Finally, you'll need to plan for what happens if things don't go as planned, regardless of what happens. What if your income changes, if either of your parents become deceased in advance of retirement, if they get a divorced from each other, or if either/both become ill or disabled and need assisted care? Planning for such unpleasant possibilities (even if they seem crazy and not going to happen in your mind right now) can save you all a tremendous amount of heart ache later on when the unexpected (including things I didn't mention) pops up.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2e62c61818c55d0ee087218fe5a7e92",
"text": "Unless you think it's likely that you'll move back soon, this is probably not the best way to get experience as a landlord. You might want to talk to a property management company and look at the fees they would charge to do your job as landlord. You should also consider that your mortgage may require you to occupy the house for a certain amount of time. Mortgages for non-owner-occupied properties usually have a higher interest rate and vetting criteria are more strict.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "830023386cce5d5933accccde88f990d",
"text": "Honestly I would look for a house you can afford and one that is below the maximum amount of what they are willing to lend you. The reason is owning a house is not a quick loan that you can pay off in a year or two (unless you're rich then I would question why are you even bothering with a loan). This is a long term commitment; can you honestly say your job will provide the money for the mortgage, the upkeep and remodeling of the house (even if it's the perfect house you will want to change something, make the bathroom bigger, put in a pool table etc.. etc..), living expenses and any hiccups life throws at you? Like most of us, that answer will be no. Always have money and supplies for that rainy day, for those lean days. For that mortgage payment. And if nothing happens you can always use the money to pay the mortgage off faster or take a vacation.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f000814393145523bb955e8c305cd035",
"text": "\"I've never heard of rent quoted per week. Are you in the US? In general, after the down payment, one would hope to take the rent, and be able to pay the mortgage, tax, insurance, and then have enough left each year to at least have a bit of emergency money for repairs. If one can start by actually pocketing more than this each year, that's ideal, but to start with a rental, and only make money \"\"after taxes\"\" is cutting it too close in my opinion. The 19 to 1 \"\"P/E\"\" appears too high, when I followed such things I recall 12 or under being the target. Of course rates were higher, and that number rises with very low rates. In your example, a $320K mortgage at 4% is $1527/mo. $400/wk does not cut it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34b90f582d0325e1d5a143df06626128",
"text": "\"I went through the process so I'll add my experience for posterity. On the morning of the day I was ready to pay, I went to my mortgage company's web site and got an instant payoff statement dated for the same day. This had the final payoff amount as well as addresses to send checks and information about wiring. I printed this statement out and took it to my bank the same day and told them that I wanted to wire money. They referred to the printout and sent the money to the mortgage company. The next day, the mortgage company web site indicated that the loan was paid in full. Although sending a check (and the payoff statement indicated that cashier's checks were \"\"preferred\"\"), wiring the money was an easy process and helped me to overcome my concerns about situations that might arise if mail had been used (i.e. I did not want to deal with the complexity of day-late/day-early fees/credits, and I did not want to worry about the complexity of potentially losing a cashier's check in the mail).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15b8790c8e70783945c7ac626dfa0e19",
"text": "You can choose to pay your mortgage instead of another bill, or vice versa. Your net will change from month to month while your gross is relatively static. I can make a bunch of promises to my load officer about my expenses, but it is very difficult to verify. Moreover, it is pretty hard to give your net income and plan for emergencies. So for the sake of reliability, verifiability, and general ease a lender will look at your gross. YOU should definitely look at your net when deciding if you can afford a loan.",
"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": "4d2dca01d9cfa77aa73046505321e972",
"text": "\"I see two important things missing from your ongoing costs: maintenance and equipment. I also don't see the one-time costs of buying and moving. Maintenance involves doing some boring math like \"\"roofs go every 20 years or so and a new roof would cost $20k, so I need $1000 a year in the roof fund. Furnaces go every 20 years and cost $5k, so I need $250 a year in the furnace fund.\"\" etc etc. Use your own local numbers for both how long things last and how much they cost to replace. One rule of thumb is a percentage of the house (not house and land) price each year keeping in mind that while roof, furnace, carpet, stove, toilets etc all need to get replaced eventually, not everything does - the walls for example cost a lot to build but don't wear out - and not all at a 20 year pace. Some is more often, some is less often. I've heard 5% but think that's too high. Try 3% maybe? So if you paid $200,000 for a $100,000 house sitting on $100,000 of land, you put $3000 a year or about $250 a month into a repair fund. Then ignore it until something needs to be repaired. When that happens, fund the repair from the savings. If you're lucky, there will always be enough in there. If the house is kind of old and on its last legs, you might need to start with a 10 or 20k infusion into that repair fund. Equipment means a lawnmower and trimmer, a snow shovel, tools for fixing things (screwdriver, hammer, glue, pliers, that sort of thing.) Maybe tools for gardening or other hobbies that house-owners are likely to have. You might need to prune back some trees or bushes if nothing else. Eventually you get tools for your tools such as a doo-dad for sharpening your lawnmower. Well, lots of doo-dads for sharpening lots of things. One time expenses include moving, new curtains, appliances if they don't come with the house, possibly new furniture if you would otherwise have a lot of empty rooms, paint and painting equipment, and your housewarming party. There are also closing costs associated with buying a house, and you might need to give deposits for some of your utilities, or pay to have something (eg internet) installed. Be sure to research these since you have to pay them right when you have the least money, as you move in.\"",
"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 $100K, while the bare land could be sold for about twice that, so I'm paying about 50% extra for flood insurance.) May not apply to your loan-from-parents situation, but in the general case it should be considered. FWIW, in your situation I'd probably invest the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37eefec0f97bf0090dbd8ec66afcbf52",
"text": "\"A bank may not like loaning money to you for this. That is one snag. You listed 500,000-600,000$ for a monster of a house (3000 sqft is over three times the average size of homes a hundred years ago). Add in the price of the land at 60K (600K divided ten ways). Where I live, there is a 15% VAT tax on new homes. I can't find out if California imposes a VAT tax on new homes. Anyway, returning back to the topic, because of the risk of loaning you 660K for a piece of land and construction, the bank may only let you borrow half or less of the final expected cost (not value). Another huge snag is that you say in a comment to quid \"\"I came up with this conclusion after talking to someone who had his property built in early 2000s in bay area for that average price\"\". Let's apply 3% inflation over 15 years to that number of 200$/sqft. That brings the range for construction costs to 780K-930K. Even at 2% inflation 670K-810K. Edit: OP later expanded the question making it an inquiry on why people don't collaborate to buy a plot of land and build their homes. \"\"Back in the day\"\" this wasn't all that atypical! For example, my pastor's parents did just this when he was a young lad. Apart from the individual issues mentioned above, there are sociological challenges that arrive. Examples: These are the easy questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f322b9b5a08727925d15bfeaf3f74e1d",
"text": "I think the consensus is that you can't afford a home now and need to build more of a down payment (20% is benchmark, you may also need to pay mortgage insurance if you are below that) and all considered, it takes up too much of your monthly budget. You didn't do anything wrong but as mentioned by Ben, you are missing some monthly and yearly costs with home ownership. I suggest visiting a bank or somewhere like coldwell banker to discuss accurate costs and regulations in your area. I know the feeling of considering paying more now for the very attractive thought of owning a home... in 30 years. After interest, you need to consider that you are paying almost double the initial principle so don't rush for something you can do a year or two down the line as a major commitment. One major point that isn't emphasized in the current answers. You have a large family: Two children, a dog, and a cat. I don't know the kid's ages but given you are in your early twenties and your estimated monthly costs, they are probably very young before the point they really put any stress financially but you need to budget them in exponentially. Some quick figures from experience. Closing costs including inspections, mortgage origination fee, lawyer fees, checking the history of the home for liens, etc, which will set you back minimum 5% depending on the type of purchase (short sales, foreclosures are more expensive because they take longer) Insurance (home and flood) will depend on your zoning but you can expect anywhere between $100-300 a month. For many zones it is mandatory. Also depending on if it's a coop ($800+), condo($500+) or a townhouse-type you will need to pay different levels of monthly maintenance for the groundskeeping as a cooperative fee. at an estimate of a 250K home, all your savings will not be able to cover your closing costs and all 250k will need to be part of your base mortgage. so your base monthly mortgage payment at around 4% will be $1,200 a month. it's too tight. If it was a friend, I would highly suggest against buying in this case to preserve financial flexibility and sanity at such a young age.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5de97a1bc0bbdec7f2e311fbfba9d0bd",
"text": "\"Be careful that pride is not getting in the way of making a good decision. As it stands now what difference does it make to have 200K worth of debt and a 200K house or 225K of debt and a 250K house? Sure you would have a 25K higher net worth, but is that really important? Some may even argue that such an increase is not real as equity in primary residence might not be a good indication of wealth. While there is nothing wrong with sitting down with a banker, most are likely to see your scheme as dubious. Home improvements rarely have a 100% ROI and almost never have a 200% ROI, I'd say you'd be pretty lucky to get a 65% ROI. That is not to say they will deny you. The banks are in the business of lending money, and have the goal of taking as much of your hard earned paycheck as possible. They are always looking to \"\"sheer the sheep\"\". Why not take a more systematic approach to improving your home? Save up and pay cash as these don't seem to cause significant discomfort. With that size budget and some elbow grease you can probably get these all done in three years. So in three years you'll have about 192K in debt and a home worth 250K or more.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dcd512d72c0534795299c5d977528a9",
"text": "Are you trolling right now? If you knew what you were doing when you made that bet, you might consider reinvesting that money. 24yr olds don't buy first-time houses anymore. Houses today are meant for existing landowners and wealthy foreign investors willing to pay cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad87a90c0c9695b48710dafc42e7a3b",
"text": "I recognize you are probably somewhere in the middle of various steps here... but I'd start and go through one-by-one in a disciplined way. That helps to cut through the overwhelming torrent of information that's out there. Here is my start at a general checklist: others can feel free to edit it or add their input. How 'much' house would you like to buy in terms of $$$ and bedrooms/sq ft. You can start pretty general here, but the idea is to figure out if you can actually afford a brand new 4bd/3ba 2,500 sq ft house (upwards of $500K in your neck of the woods according to trulia.com). Or maybe with your current resources you'll be looking at something like a townhome that is more entry-level but still yours. Some might recommend that this is a good time to talk to any significant others/whomevers and understand/manage expectations. My wife usually cares a lot about schools at this stage, but I think it's too early. Just ballpark whether you're looking at a $500K house, a $300K house, or a $200K townhome. How much house can you afford in terms of monthly payments only... (not considering other costs like utilities yet). Looking around at calculators like this one from bankrate.com can help you figure this out. Set the interest rate @ 5%, 30-year loan, and change the 'mortgage amount' until you have something that is about 80%-90% of what you currently pay in rent each month. I'll get to 'why' to undershoot your rent payment later. Crap... can't afford my dream house... If you don't have the down payment to make the numbers work (remember that this doesn't even include closing costs yet), there are other loan options like FHA loans that can go as low as about 5% down payment. The math would be the same but you replace 0.8 with 0.95. Then, look at your personal budget. Come up with general estimates of what you currently bring in and spend each month overall. Just ballpark it... Next, figure what you currently spend towards housing in particular. Whether you are paying for it or your landlord is paying for it, someone pays for a lot of different things for housing. For now, my list would include (1) Rent, (2) Mortgage Payment, (3) Electricity, (4) Gas, (5) Sewer, (6) Water, (7) Trash, (8) Other utilities... TV/Internet/Phone, (9) Property Insurance, (10) Renter's Insurance, and (11) Property Taxes. I would put it into a table in Excel somewhere that has 3 columns... The first has the labels, the second will have what you spend now, and the third will have what you might spend on each one as a homeowner. If you pay it now, put it in the second column. If your landlord pays it right now, leave it out as that's included in your rent payment. Obviously each cell won't be filled in. Fill in the rest of the third column. You won't pay rent anymore, but you will have a mortgage payment. You probably have a good estimate of any electricity bills, etc that you currently pay, but those may be slightly higher in a house vs. a condo or an apartment. As for things like sewer, water, trash or other 'community' utilities, my bet would be that your landlord pays for those. If you need a good estimate ask around with some co-workers or friends that own their own places. They would also be a good resource for property insurance estimates... shooting from the hip I would say about $100/month based on this website. (I'm not affiliated). The real 'ouch' is going to be property tax rates. Based on the data from this website, your county is about 9% of property value. So add that into the third column as well. Can you really afford a house? round 2 Now... add up the third column and see how that monthly expense amount on housing compares against your current monthly budget. If it's over, you don't have to give up, but you should just understand how much your decision to purchase a house will strain your budget. Also, you should use this information to look again at 'how much house can you afford.' Now, do some more research. If you need to get a revised loan amount based on the FHA loan decision, then use the bankrate calculator to find out what the monthly payment is for a 95% loan against your target price. But remember that an FHA loan will also carry PMI that is extra on top of your monthly payment. Or, if you need to revise your mortgage payment downwards (or upwards) change the loan amount accordingly. Once you've got the numbers set, look for properties that fit. This way you can have a meaningful discussion with yourself or other stakeholders about what you can afford. As far as arranging financing... a realtor will be able and willing to point you in the right direction for obtaining funding, etc. And at that point you can just check anything you're offered by shopping interest rates, etc against what the internet has to say. Feel free to ask us, too... it's hard to give much better direction without more specifics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9a52f0604d011d92173b9a5963f9ebac
|
How do share dilution scams make money?
|
[
{
"docid": "c743f34b227a7fc64ada2c7bc3bcdec2",
"text": "\"For this to work, those who control the dilution must also control their salaries because the only way for them to be paid off when it's the corporation itself selling is to gain access to the proceeds. When a corporation sells newly issued equity, the corporation itself owns the money. To at least have the appearance of propriety, the scammers must be paid those proceeds. Both actions imply that the board is captured by the scammers. There are many corporations that seem to do this even with persistently large market capitalizations. The key difference between this and pump-and-dump is that its a fraudulent group of investors selling in this case instead of the corporation itself. A detailed simple example Corporations are mandated by law to be little oligarchies; although, \"\"republic\"\" is now becoming more appropriate with all of the new shareholder rights. A corporation is controlled at root by the board of directors who are elected by the shareholders. The board has no direct operational control, as that is left to the \"\"king\"\", the CEO; however, the board does control what everyone wants access to: the money. Board members have all sorts of legal qualitative mandates on how to behave, and they've functioned fairly decently efficiently over the long run, but there are definitely some bad apples. Boards are somewhat intransigent since it's difficult to hold board elections, and usually only specific board members are put up for election by a shareholder vote, so a bad one has the potential to really get stuck in there. Once a bad one is in there, they don't care because they know it will be tough to get them out, so they run roughshod over the company's purse. Only the board can take action on major funding such as the CEO's operating budget, board compensation, financing, investment, etc, some with shareholder approval, some without. The corporation itself owns all of those assets, but the board controls them. In this example, they scheme with most likely the top executive, but a rubber stamp top executive could allow a lower rung to scheme with the board, but the board is always constant until the law is changed. Because there's no honor amongst thieves, the board votes which can require some combination of executive and shareholder approval are taken very close together: sell shares, increase salaries to key executive schemers, increase board compensation. The trusting shareholders believe this is in the best interests of the company at large so go along. So the money flows from existing & new shareholders to the corporation now controlled by a malicious board and then finally to the necessary malicious executive and the vital malicious board.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "d040cf2951facd059b0dfda761f6d2ef",
"text": "Ok, few things to understand first: Secondly, think about the way a scam usually flows. A person (scammer) with an actual bank account with money issues a valid cashiers check, trick someone else (victim) into receiving it (typically in exchange for a percent) and passing along a portion to another account (back to the scammer). The scammer then reports the first transaction as fraudulent and the bank takes back that transaction. Now the victim is stuck with the second transaction, and without the funds from the first. Meanwhile the scammer has both the original funds and the percentage from the second one. In a way they're attractive for scammers because they're so trusted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d7c47268b8731b24a5cc95a73efbe03",
"text": "\"How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X? The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks. The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks. Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger. Good luck with that. \"\"Insider trading\"\" is, when found out, a crime these days. But \"\"insider knowledge\"\", \"\"insider hints\"\", \"\"knowledge of market sentiment\"\" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other. I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK. The \"\"2008\"\" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010. Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "924ec97e56ea4c56464f722c7914e103",
"text": "Need help with a finance problem I'm currently facing in my business. My company might be going through an acquisition and I need to understand how the dilution works out for shareholders. They currently have large shareholder loans (debt), and will be converting to equity pre-transaction. For this case, if the original company value = $1 MM and the SHL value = $1 MM, I'm assuming that'd dilute equity by 50% for all shareholders if converted to equity at original company value. Correct? However, what if the $1 MM in shareholder loans were converted at the market value of the company, say $4 MM? I might be confusing myself, but just want to confirm.. thanks!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc295cbc2414b81fc1c98c6719ee76db",
"text": "\"Wells Fargo Shareowner Services main job is as a Transfer Agent and Dividend Paying Agent. They work on behalf of a company (say Acme Inc.) to keep track of who the shareowners are, their job is to constantly update the official record of who owns how many Acme shares. (Also, obviously, they pay out dividends). You can see how they got involved: they are the ones who were able to \"\"rename\"\" your deceased relative's shares so they are now in your name, no one else can do that. Now, however, they don't have to keep your shares, you can transfer them elsewhere if you wish. You will have to legally prove your identity, which is not difficult to do in most cases (assuming you are in US, have a government issued ID and a bank account, and some time to do some paperwork).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f504ec4770251af8ae3520601a718ca",
"text": "To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "148d952b8d3badb1b92867d36058ebf6",
"text": "Like others have already said, it may cause an immediate dip due to a large and sudden move in shares for that particular stock. However, if there is nothing else affecting the company's financials and investors perceive no other risks, it will probably bounce back a bit, but not back to the full value before the shares were issued. Why? Whenever a company issues more stock, the new shares dilute the value of the current shares outstanding, simply because there are now more shares of that stock trading on the market; the Earnings Per Share (EPS) Ratio will drop since the same profit and company value has to be spread across more shares. Example: If a company is valued at $100 dollars and they have 25 shares outstanding, then the EPS ratio equates to $4 per share (100/25 = 4). If the company then issues more shares (stock to employees who sell or keep them), let's say 25 more shares, then shares outstanding increase to 50, but the company's value still remains at $100 dollars. EPS now equates to $2 per share (100/50 = 2). Now, sometimes when shareholders (especially employees...and especially employees who just received them) suddenly all sell their shares, this causes a micro-panic in the market because investors believe the employees know something bad about the company that they don't. Other common shareholders then want to dump their holdings for fear of impending collapse in the company. This could cause the share price to dip a bit below the new diluted value, but again if no real, immediate risks exist, the price should go back up to the new, diluted value. Example 2: If EPS was at $4 before issuing more stock, and then dropped to $2 after issuing new stock, the micro-panic may cause the EPS to drop below $2 and then soon rebound back to $2 or more when investors realize no actual risk exists. After the dilution phase plays out, the EPS could actually even go above the pre-issuing value of $4 because investors may believe that since more stock was issued due to good profits, more profits may ensue. Hope that helps!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c4940e819f4f7310f79918fd13c6cf8",
"text": "Pump-and-dump scams are indeed very real, but the scale of a single scam isn't anywhere near the type of heist you see in movies like Trading Places. Usually, the scammer will buy a few hundred dollars of a penny stock for some obscure small business, then they'll spam every address they have with advice that this business is about to announce a huge breakthrough that will make it the next Microsoft. A few dozen people bite, buy up a few thousand shares each (remember the shares are trading for pennies), then when the rise in demand pushes up the price enough for the scammer to make a decent buck, he cashes out, the price falls based on the resulting glut of stock, and the victims lose their money. Thus a few red flags shake out that would-be investors should be wary of:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "302c61b590ca3faf629e6dea9041552a",
"text": "isn't it still a dilution of existing share holder stock value ? Whether this is dilution or benefit, only time will tell. The Existing value of Facebook is P, the anticipated value after Watsapp is P+Q ... it may go up or go down depending on whether it turns out to be the right decision. Plus if Facebook hadn't bought Watsapp and someone else may have bought and Facebook itself would have got diluted, just like Google Shadowed Microsoft and Facebook shadowed Google ... There are regulations in place to ensure that there is no diversion of funds and shady deals where only the management profits and others are at loss. Edit to littleadv's comments: If a company A is owned by 10 people for $ 10 with total value $100, each has 10% of the share in the said company. Now if a Company B is acquired again 10 ea with total value 100. In percentage terms everyone now owns 5% of the new combined company C. He still owns $10 worth. Just after this acquisition or some time later ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acdb6451f0938e70c1338228a3f29721",
"text": "That's not what is happening here. The companies are focusing on retained earnings, which are on their books on a global basis. Robbing Peter to pay Paul would be true if the money was funneled from one company to another, to the complete exclusion of shareholders. That kind of behavior has been seen too and that too is unethical and deemed illegal in most jurisdictions. In those maneuvers, management transfers money from shareholders to their own pockets. Stock options issued by tech companies is a good example, though the behavior was far more rampant before they had to declare diluted earnings. The solution is to have a populace much more involved in its country's politics, far lower taxes and a strong streak of independence, libertarians like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson ;) In the current structure of apathy and ignorance, it is the cunning and the sociopaths who rise to the top.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a708ffe12cffb35fe9351333386cd171",
"text": "They mostly make money off of the spread between your order and the spread of the buy and sell currently in the market. As others have previously explained, their buy/sell spreads are a little lacklustre.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69e4603c713071cd9e01609a98732949",
"text": "Stock trading (as opposed to IPO) doesn't directly benefit the company. But it affects their ability to raise additional funds; if they're valued higher, they don't need to sell as many shares to raise a given amount of money. And the stockholders are part owners of the company; their votes in annual corporate meetings and the like can add up to a substantial influence on the company's policies, so the company has an interest in keeping them (reasonably) happy. Dividends (distributing part of the company's profits to the stockholders) are one way of doing so. You're still investing in the company. The fact that you're buying someone else's share just means you're doing so indirectly, and they're dis-investing at the same time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33ce5d7a0c863aca2667749c5d535e19",
"text": "That's not how a ponzi scheme works. You've just described a totally benign transaction involving shares of a sham company. Plenty of people traded Enron shares before it collapsed, that doesn't mean they were complicit or involved in a Ponzi scheme or fraud. Here is the wikipedia page for Ponzi Scheme A ponzi scheme is when I give funds to Fund Manager A because he has a good history of strong returns. Fund Manager A does something with the money I give him, but his financial statements don't represent his true activity or returns. He maintains his strong returns and Investor B shows up to invest also. At some point I want my money back for whatever reason. Since the returns have all been a sham, I'm paid out with the funds that Investor B sent in based on totally fabricated returns.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ab606921ac142b915d0bb2d892e276a",
"text": "To complement farnsy's answer, I want to warn people against market prediction scams. If they give uniformly distributed buy/sell predictions to 256 people, one of them will get eight correct predictions in a row. They are trading a few cents of Amazon server time for 3% of your capital.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dee3c592c5617743e51286e032199d6",
"text": "Ponzi schemes (or pyramid schemes) are based on paying earlier investors from the money invested by the later ones. For Ponzi scheme, the idea is generally to distribute some relateviely high consistent dividend/payout based on the inflow of money from new investors. As long as new investors are coming, the scheme can be sustained for quite some time (see the Madoff's example that spanned over decades). In the mean time the scheme operator can take (some of) the investment money to himself (legally as fees and salary, illegally as embezzling). The scheme operator doesn't actually have to put in any money other than some organizational expenses. However, at some point the new investors' money won't be enough to pay all the existing investors (inevitably, sooner or later, since the dividend payout grows with each new investor and there are no infinite exponential amount of new investors to cover for it). That's when the $#!+ hits the fan and sons of the schemers start ending up hanging from the ceiling. Pyramid scheme is built on similar idea, but the dividend payout varies based on the level of the investor (i.e.: the investor gets paid based on how many new ones he brought in, and how many new ones rooted from them). Thus the incentive to bring new investors is directly shifted to the investors themselves. The schemers here are at the top and get the most payouts from all the rest of the participants. They themselves usually put no or very little investment. However, the end result is the same: couldn't possibly be enough investors to sustain this model forever, and it will inevitably fail at some point. When such a scheme fails - the paying fund ends up being bankrupt, either due to cashflow problems (not enough money in to pay money out) or because all the money dries out (usually - both). How to detect - if the reports are not falsified (which in most cases they are) you'll see clearly that there's no actual investment income in the cash-flow. But, the reports are usually falsified to conceal this exact fact. So, that's where the independent auditors and regulatory oversight come in handy. Generally, if an investment fund doesn't have a reputable independent auditor - stay away.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a25f00287d67c4d3a6cc8ea8f85fb864
|
Having trouble with APR calculation
|
[
{
"docid": "452f27da8e2c009b017c0b881ec4cf77",
"text": "I have answered your question in detail here https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12396422/apr-calculation-formula The annuity formula in FDIC document is at first finding PVIFAD present value annuity due factor and multiplying it with annuity payment and then dividing it by an interest factor of (1+i) to reduce the annuity to an ordinary annuity with end of period payments They could have simply used PVIFA and multiplying it with annuity payment to find the present value of an ordinary annuity In any case, you should not follow the directions in FDIC document to find interest rate at which the present value of annuity equals the loan amount. The method they are employing is commonly used by Finance Professors to teach their students how to find internal rate of return. The method is prone to lengthy trial and error attempts without having any way of knowing what rate to use as an initial guess to kick off the interest rate calculations So this is what I would suggest if you are not short on time and would like to get yourself familiar with numerical methods or iterative techniques to find internal rate of return There are way too many methods at disposal when it comes to finding interest rates some of which include All of the above methods use a seed value as a guess rate to start the iterative calculations and if results from successive calculations tend to converge within a certain absolute Error bound, we assume that one of the rates have been found as there may be as many rates as the order of the polynomial in this case 36 There are however some other methods that help find all rates by making use of Eigenvalues, but for this you would need a lengthy discourse of Linear Algebra One of the methods that I have come across which was published in the US in 1969 (the year I was born :) ) is called the Jenkins Traub method named after the two individuals who worked jointly on finding a solution to all roots of a polynomial discarding any previous work on the same subject I been trying to go over the Jenkins Traub algorithm but am having difficulty understanding the complex nature of the calculations required to find all roots of the polynomial In summary you would be better of reading up on this site about the Newton Raphson method to find IRR",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb4162c5533d3365d1aae1ce002dad60",
"text": "Check your calculation of A**. I was able to duplicate their calculations using excel. Make you sure have accounted for all the terms, it can be easy to be one off. They are making a guess at the interest rate which will be wrong, then they are adjusting it to see how wrong it is, then making another adjustment. They will repeat until they see no movement in the guesses.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1f44a13c0f9aa05b0b154df9f73321d6",
"text": "The formula you need is: M = (r * PV) / (1 - ((1+r)^(-n))) M = monthly payment ($350) r = interest per period (7.56% / 12) = 0.63% n = number of periods (36 months) PV = present value, or here, your max loan amount given M Therefore: $350 = (0.63% * PV) / (1 - ((1+0.63%)^(-36))) The denominator on the right ends up equal to ~ 0.2025 when you do the math in your calculator. Carry that over to the by multiplying both sides of the equation by 0.2025 This results in $70.82 = 0.63% * PV Divide $70.82 by 0.63% to get PV = $11,242 (roughly). Hope this helps explain it algebraically!!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "228a966b42e8fb98215b502c9cd1a61a",
"text": "Interest is calculated daily. Doing the math: Between 6-17 and 7-25 are 38 days, 200.29 / 38 = 5.27 interest per day. Between 7-25 and 8-17 are 23 days. 120.02 / 23 = 5.22 interest per day. The minimal difference is because the principal has already gone down a little bit. So you should expect ~5.20 x number of days for the next interest number coming up; slowly decreasing as the remaining principal debt decreases. Note that this is equivalent of an annual interest rate of over 20 %, which is beyond acceptable. In the current economy, this is ridiculously high. I recommend trying to get a refinancing with another provider; you should be able to get it for a third of that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f510cfae2458ebd9e73e22990b76c393",
"text": "This is a clear example of annuities, where you are trying to find Net Present Value (NPV). To find a quick solution you can use the excel function (=NPV). Solving it without excel is slightly more complicated. You have to use the annuities formula: (Payment/rate) * (1 - 1/(1+r)^n ) This formula can be written in many different ways, this is one of the simplest. So how do we translate that to your problem? For the first option: -5000/0.04 * (1 - 1/(1.04^2 ) = -9430.47 If you haven't made this years 5000 payment you have to subtract this years 5000, so option 1 would equal -14430,47. Option 2 is similar -2000/0.04 (1 - 1/(1.04^10 ) = -16221.79 WAIT! You also have to subtract the initial cost so option 2 is -36221.79 So in essence, option 1 is better (but you will have to buy a machine sooner or later). Part 2 (discount rate = 12%) is for you to understand the importance of high rates in long periods of time (like option 2's 10 years) EDIT: For clearer formulas. Also made a mistake calculating option 2",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca30e776472a9f4a206f93e759e22900",
"text": "In this case, it looks like the interest is simply the nominal daily interest rate times number of days in the period. From that you can use a spreadsheet to calculate the total payment by trial and error. With the different number of days in each period, any formula would be very complicated. In the more usual case where the interest charge for each period is the same, the formula is: m=P*r^n*(r-1)/(r^n-1) where * is multiplication ^ is exponentiation / is division (Sorry, don't know if there's a way to show formulas cleanly on here) P=original principle r=growth factor per payment period, i.e. interest rate + 100% divided by 100, e.g. 1% -> 1.01 n=number of payments Note the growth factor above is per period, so if you have monthly payments, it's the rate per month. The last payment may be different because of rounding errors, unequal number of days per period, or other technicalities. Using that formula here won't give the right answer because of the unequal periods, but it should be close. Let's see: r=0.7% times an average of 28.8 days per period gives 20.16% + 1 = 1.2016. n=5 P=500 m=500*1.2016^5*(1.2016-1)/(1.2016^5-1) =167.78 Further off than I expected, but ballpark.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acbff6d144a04d785c94ea5caaf1cfd1",
"text": "The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value. (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation. As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate. (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "eaa41ceaeab34d349a7792b63eb3d04d",
"text": "Question is, what is this number 0.01140924 13.69/12=0.01140924 In addition, how does one come out with the EIR as 13.69% pa? When calculating payments, PV = 9800, N=36 (months), PMT=333.47, results in a rate of 1.140924% per period, and rate of 13.69%/yr. No idea how they claim 7.5% In Excel, type =RATE(36,333.47,-9800,0,0) And you will get 1.141% as the result. 36 = #payments, 333.47 = payment per period, -9800 is the principal (negative, remember this) And the zeros are to say the payments are month end, second zero is the guess. Edit - I saw the loan is from a Singapore bank. It appears they have different rules on the rates they quote. As quid's answer showed the math, here's the bank's offer page - The EIR is the rate that we, not just US, but most board members, are used to. I thought I'd offer an example using a 30 year mortgage. Yo can see above, a 6% fixed rate somehow morphs into a 3.86% AR. No offense to the Singapore bankers, but I see little value in this number. What surprises me most, is that I've not seen this before. What's baffling is when I change a 15yr term the AP drops to less than half. It's still a 6% loan and there's nothing about it that's 2 percent-ish, in my opinion. Now we know.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c8afd7222d68da2274599759df354008",
"text": "ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation. This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts. So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause. The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances. It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year. While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine. It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go. Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to. This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a69573b10bc69c804febd5912f716dc",
"text": "\"There is no formula that can be applied to most variations of the problem you pose. The reason is that there is no simple, fixed relationship between the two time periods involved: the time interval for successive payments, and the time period for successive interest compounding. Suppose you have daily compounding and you want to make weekly payments (A case that can be handled). Say the quoted rate is 4.2% per year, compounded daily Then the rate per day is 4.2/365, or 0.0115068 % So, in one week, a debt would grow through seven compoundings. A debt of $1 would grow to 1 * (1+.000225068)^7, or 1.000805754 So, the equivalent interest rate for weekly compounding is 0.0805754% Now you have weekly compounding, and weekly payments, so the standard annuity formulas apply. The problem lies in that number \"\"7\"\", the number of days in a week. But if you were trying to handle daily / monthly, or weekly / quarterly, what value would you use? In such cases, the most practical method is to convert any compounding rate to a daily compounding rate, and use a spreadsheet to handle the irregularly spaced payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7907f479ca9dea88aa294511fa079ce",
"text": "The equation for the payment is This board does not support Latex (the number formatting code) so the above is an image, the code is M is the payment calculated, n is the number of months or periods to pay off, and i is the rate per period. You can see that with i appearing 3 times in this equation, it's not possible to isolate to the form i=.... so a calculator will 'guess,' and use, say, 10%. It then raises or lowers the rate until the result is within the calculator's tolerance. I've observed that unlike other calculations, when you hit the button to calculate, a noticeable time lag occurs. I hope I haven't read too much into your question, it seemed to me this was what you asked.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f25fc1100906dad3d175ba50a5c3a5c",
"text": "TWRR = (2012Q4 x 2013Q1 x 2013Q2) ^ (1/3) = ?? (1.1 * .809 * 1.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 or 4.7% return. No imaginary numbers needed. But. Your second line there is wrong $15,750 - $15,000 - $4,000 ? The $15K already contains the $4k, why did you subtract it again? This a homework problem?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e14660d08b4b2fa45f1d81f43002d2c7",
"text": "\"Wow, this turns out to be a much more difficult problem than I thought from first looking at it. Let's recast some of the variables to simplify the equations a bit. Let rb be the growth rate of money in your bank for one period. By \"\"growth rate\"\" I mean the amount you will have after one period. So if the interest rate is 3% per year paid monthly, then the interest for one month is 3/12 of 1% = .25%, so after one month you have 1.0025 times as much money as you started with. Similarly, let si be the growth rate of the investment. Then after you make a deposit the amount you have in the bank is pb = s. After another deposit you've collected interest on the first, so you have pb = s * rb + s. That is, the first deposit with one period's growth plus the second deposit. One more deposit and you have pb = ((s * rb) + s) * rb + s = s + s * rb + s * rb^2. Etc. So after n deposits you have pb = s + s * rb + s * rb^2 + s * rb^3 + ... + s * rb^(n-1). This simplifies to pb = s * (rb^n - 1)/(rb - 1). Similarly for the amount you would get by depositing to the investment, let's call that pi, except you must also subtract the amount of the broker fee, b. So you want to make deposits when pb>pi, or s*(ri^n-1)/(ri-1) - b > s*(rb^n-1)/(rb-1) Then just solve for n and you're done! Except ... maybe someone who's better at algebra than me could solve that for n, but I don't see how to do it. Further complicating this is that banks normally pay interest monthly, while stocks go up or down every day. If a calculation said to withdraw after 3.9 months, it might really be better to wait for 4.0 months to collect one additional month's interest. But let's see if we can approximate. If the growth rates and the number of periods are relatively small, the compounding of growth should also be relatively small. So an approximate solution would be when the difference between the interest rates, times the amount of each deposit, summed over the number of deposits, is greater than the fee. That is, say the investment pays 10% per month more than your bank account (wildly optimistic but just for example), the broker fee is $10, and the amount of each deposit is $200. Then if you delay making the investment by one month you're losing 10% of $200 = $20. This is more than the broker fee, so you should invest immediately. Okay, suppose more realistically that the investment pays 1% more per month than the bank account. Then the first month you're losing 1% of $200 = $2. The second month you have $400 in the bank, so you're losing $4, total loss for two months = $6. The third month you have $600 in the bank so you lose an additional $6, total loss = $12. Etc. So you should transfer the money to the investment about the third month. Compounding would mean that losses on transferring to the investment are a little higher than this, so you'd want to bias to transferring a little earlier. Or, you could set up a spreadsheet to do the compounding calculations month by month, and then just look down the column for when the investment total minus the bank total is greater than the broker fee. Sorry I'm not giving you a definitive answer, but maybe this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a33b7e79c798f5df57f893117b965db2",
"text": "Thanks it is problem for class and I don't want to give the problem I just want to understand how to actually do it and the book hasn't been much help. Only additional information I can provide is In Inventory – 15 days Accounts Receivable outstanding – 35 days Vendor credit – 40 days Operating Cycle – 50 days",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c844bfce550445f3758e75c9421f48ad",
"text": "If the APR is an effective rate. If the APR is a nominal rate compounded monthly, first convert it to an effective rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4c6b9eb7fd9126ff2aad03854b5e0e6e",
"text": "If your APR is quoted as nominal rate compounded monthly, the APR is 108.6 %. Here is the calculation, (done in Mathematica ). The sum of the discounted future payments (p) are set equal to the present value (pv) of the loan, and solved for the periodic interest rate (r). Details of the effective interest rate calculation can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_interest_rate#Calculation",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1c5f7796e8581ad364cb3aa2a495ea88",
"text": "\"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b5fc68a412b9eeab6e7fbec975f75ed9
|
Should I buy out my brother on a property we will inherit before making improvements?
|
[
{
"docid": "098ac72e2b2d1e5322ce9d5621a9821b",
"text": "In the end you, your dad, and your brother should come to an agreement so there's no surprises or unfulfilled expectations, but here's my opinion: If you can afford to make the additions now: I would offer to pay fully for the addition, with the understanding that the additional value that it generates is yours. That keeps everything in your name, and should be fair since you pay for the expense and someday reap the benefit. If you can't afford to make the additions now: I see two options: have your brother buy your father's house, giving you half of the proceeds, and use those proceeds to make the addition as above, or split the cost of the addition and have some sort of contract drawn up promising to reimburse him (with the amount of the reimbursement very clear, like XXX dollars plus accrued interest at Y% annually) as a condition to selling the house. One other part you didn't mention is any compensation you get for keeping your father at your house. What compensation (if any) you get is not as important as making sure that the three of you all agree on what is fair. In any case, clear, honest communication and full agreement is key. There is a very real risk that when your father's estate is settled that there will be disputes over what the agreement was and who it entitled to what. Having everything in writing may sound cold, but it keeps everyone on the same page.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f143cf90f596f0fb81fb5e359cf2b9a3",
"text": "If your father is still able to make financial decisions and sign contracts, I see a better option. Have your father borrow against his equity to finance the renovation. Example: the house is worth 400 now. He can borrow 100 against that. He spends it on the addition, making the house worth 500, with the same 400 of equity as before. (In some cases, spending 100 might add 150 to the house value, but let's assume here the increase is just what was spent.) When he dies, the mortgage has to be repaid. If he has no other money (that the two of you would otherwise split) then the mortgage has to be repaid by the two of you putting in cash. So you pay your brother 250 (half the new total value of the house) but he gives 50 of that to the bank for the mortgage. You also give 50 of your own money to the bank for the mortgage. Net result: your brother has 200 (the same as if he had inherited half the unimproved house), and you have a 500 house after paying out 300. Your gain is also the same as if the house was unimproved. Now if the house went up 150 by spending 100, or went up 60 by spending 100, you and your brother would also be sharing this profit or loss. If you don't want that to happen, you will need a different agreement. The advantage of the approach I'm suggesting is you just need one appraisal after your father dies. Not accounted for in this is that you lived (without paying rent) in your father's house for some time, and that you worked (without being paid) as a caregiver to your father for that time. Some families might think those two things balanced, others might feel you need to be compensated for caring for him, and others that you need to compensate the others for your benefit of living in the large house. Be sure to discuss this with your brother so that you agree in advance whether a plan is fair or not.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ddd542a9d753c5c700f7503744bd1677",
"text": "I would contribute this money to the deposit, but wouldn’t pay anything else-more, and want to know if they do the house up, and it increases in value how does my share gets worked out if I want it out in about l0 years? This can be simple; You have contributed 9K out of 260 K. You own Approx. 3.4% of equity in the house. Whenever this gets sold, you will get back 3.4%. Now the real trick comes in, if the house is not being sold, ie your Sister would continue using it, and you want out, then one would need to decide the fair market value. You could agree to consult some lists or agree of the fair value based on sale price of similar properties in the area. This is where it normally gets difficult and can cause disputes. we do not have much money for solicitors / lawyers, and we don't really really need them It is advisable to get a lawyer as one doesn't know what happens 10 years in future, things may go wrong between you and your sister, or your sister is no more and her fiancé may not honor the agreement you have. There are other considerations; It would be advisable you have your name on the property. It would help from Tax point of view in future. If you are not having your name on the property, then the money you are giving would be loan or gift and needs to have the right paper work If its a gift you can't have it back. Your sister would have to make a gift back to you later whenever you want out. So it can really be complicated and it would be worth the money you spend on lawyer",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "683d1446a4606ae1e9fdf8dc074abe9b",
"text": "\"The bottom line is that you can decide whatever you want to do. It is good of you to get everything in writing. What happens if she decides to move to a different city? What happens if she also wants to be bought out? It should also include contingencies for your husband and yourself. God forbid anything negative happens, but what happens if you two get divorced? Does your husband want to be an agreement with your sister if you pass away? There does not seem to be any math to do in this case. While she is paying the lion's share of the payment, she is also receiving the benefit of having a place to live. It is unlikely that she can rent an equivalent place for anything close to 1400/month. I would estimate it would be at least 1800/month to rent an equivalent property. So she put no money down, and she is paying below market \"\"rent\"\" to live somewhere. Many people would be happy to have $400/month off and handle their own repairs (let alone you still kicking in half). Now all that said, if you want to give her some equity based upon generosity or the desire to give her some dignity, then you are free to do so. Perhaps 10%?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d509c29d5ccd4e5315d82db3626855d5",
"text": "\"There are loans. Usually they're secured by the assets, and you also cosign them personally. Your own credit worthiness comes to play, your own assets are in jeopardy. As to what it is that you're buying - no, it is not necessary for the seller to sell you the building. You might buy the business, but not the actual space it occupies. In fact, the space may not even belong to the seller. You may find yourself taking over the lease, which is in fact a liability, not an asset. You should agree with the seller on what exactly it is that you're buying. You should ask for a full inventory list that would include all the assets and the liabilities that would be transferred to you. Lease, as mentioned, but you might also \"\"buy\"\" loans, debts, lawsuits, and god knows what else that is attached to the business.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "666d4e69434731a9ded729f1abad59a5",
"text": "\"I encourage you to think of this home purchase decision as a chance to buy into a community that you want your children to grow up in. Try to find a place where you will be happy for the next 20 years, not just the next 2 or 7 years. In your situation, option 1 seems like a bad idea. It will create an obstacle to having children, instead of establishing a place for them to grow up in. Option 2 is close to \"\"buying a house on a layaway plan\"\". It offers the most financial flexibility. It also could result in the best long-term outcome, because you will buy in an established area, and you will know exactly what quality house you will have. But you and your fiancé need to ask yourselves some hard questions: Are you willing to put up with the mess and hassles of remodelling? Are you good at designing such projects? Can you afford to pay for the projects as they occur? Or if you need to finance them, can you get a HELOC to cover them? Especially if you and your fiancé do much of the work yourselves, break down the projects into small enough pieces that you can quickly finish off whatever you are working on at the time, and be happy living in the resulting space. You do not want to be nagging your husband about an unfinished project \"\"forever\"\" -- or silently resenting that a project never got wrapped up. I posted some suggestions for incrementally finishing a basement on the Home Improvement Stack Exchange. If you are up to the job of option 2, it is less risky than option 3. Option 3 has several risks: You don't know what sort of people will live in the neighborhood 5 - 20 years from now. Will the homes be owner-occupied? Or rentals? Will your neighbors care about raising children well? Or will lots of kids grow up in broken homes? Will the schools be good? Disappointing? Or dangerous? Whereas in an established neighborhood, you can see what the neighborhood is currently like, and how it has been changing. Unless you custom-build (or remodel), you don't control the quality of the construction. Some neighborhoods built by Pulte in the last 10 years were riddled with construction defects. You will be paying up-front for features you don't need yet. You might never need some of them. And some of them might interfere with what you realize later on might be better. In stable markets, new homes (especially ones with lots of \"\"upgrades\"\") often decline in value during the first few years. This is because part of the value is in the \"\"newness\"\" and being \"\"up-to-date\"\" with the latest fads. This part of the value wears off over time. Are the homes \"\"at the edge of town\"\" already within reasonable walking distance of parks, schools, church, grocery stores, et cetera? Might the commute from the \"\"edge of town\"\" to work get worse over the next 5 - 20 years?\"",
"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": "98b07a3bada1706a14716f012eaff827",
"text": "\"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcde0c9bc541fa6e39fe1e997dadcc4c",
"text": "If you are concerned about it being inequitable due to the prenuptial agreement, discuss the idea of amending the prenuptial agreement to give you some consideration for your investments in the house. Prenuptial agreements often get amended over the course of a marriage. How do you proceed? It has to start with discussion. It's not an unreasonable concern given your legal separation of assets, so broach the subject and go from there. Perhaps you'll find there's a good reason for you to invest in the property even without having interest in it, who knows.",
"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": "990df5d54f35fc76dac95ac6c32c752c",
"text": "\"Another problem with this plan (assuming you get past Rocky's answer somehow) is that you assume that $50K in construction costs will translate to $50K in increased value. That's not always true; the ROI on home improvements is usually a lot less than 100%. You'd also owe more property taxes on your improvements, which would cut into your plan somewhat. But you also can't keep doing this forever. Soon enough, you'd run out of physical and/or legal space to keep adding additions to the house (zoning tends to limit how much you can build, unless you're in the middle of nowhere, and eventually you'd fill the lot), even if you did manage to keep obtaining more and more loans. And you'd quickly reach the point of diminishing returns on your expansions. Many homebuyers might be prepared to pay more for a third or fourth bedroom, but vanishingly few in most markets will pay substantially more for a second billiards room or a third home theater. At some point, your house isn't a mansion, it's \"\"that ridiculous castle\"\" only an eccentric would want, and the pool of potential buyers (and the price they'll pay for it) diminishes. And the lender, not being stupid, isn't going to go on financing your creation of a monstrosity, because they are the ones who will be stuck with the place if you default.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb2ffdbc44f0f39716c4966623450b3",
"text": "\"First, you mentioned your brother-in-law has \"\"$100,000 in stock options (fully vested)\"\". Do you mean his exercise cost would be $100,000, i.e. what he'd need to pay to buy the shares? If so, then what might be the estimated value of the shares acquired? Options having vested doesn't necessarily mean they possess value, merely that they may be exercised. Or did you mean the estimated intrinsic value of those options (estimated value less exercise cost) is $100,000? Speaking from my own experience, I'd like to address just the first part of your question: Have you treated this as you would a serious investment in any other company? That is, have you or your brother-in-law reviewed the company's financial statements for the last few years? Other than hearing from people with a vested interest (quite literally!) to pump up the stock with talk around the office, how do you know the company is: BTW, as an option holder only, your brother-in-law's rights to financial information may be limited. Will the company share these details anyway? Or, if he exercised at least one option to become a bona-fide shareholder, I believe he'd have rights to request the financial statements – but company bylaws vary, and different jurisdictions say different things about what can be restricted. Beyond the financial statements, here are some more things to consider: The worst-case risk you'd need to accept is zero liquidity and complete loss: If there's no eventual buy-out or IPO, the shares may (effectively) be worthless. Even if there is a private market, willing buyers may quickly dry up if company fortunes decline. Contrast this to public stock markets, where there's usually an opportunity to witness deterioration, exit at a loss, and preserve some capital. Of course, with great risk may come great reward. Do your own due diligence and convince yourself through a rigorous analysis — not hopes & dreams — that the investment might be worth the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ab0610af01423819120f6e5160ea3d",
"text": "\"fire your brother's friend and get another accounting major who'll listen to orders and won't try anything dodgy. You might have to pay well for that. Make sure your whole family is on the same page with future plans EDIT: I just read that you think your brother is going to do a takeover. It's your family's business. He's your brother. It's not really a \"\"hostile takeover\"\". If you don't trust your own brother you have to work on the relationship not the business. EDIT 2: I checked your profile. Stop doing drugs\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dff9d22c37c7afcb6c181ef05d403164",
"text": "~~LLPs are for licensed professionals like doctors and lawyers. He'll need to incorporate as an LLC if that's the route he goes.~~ He really should talk to a lawyer and an accountant before doing anything. There are probably no advantages to an LLC if the property isn't actually owned by the corporation.",
"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": "f3acb1cbcc9c7dace0639501451082d1",
"text": "Technically, no. Only if used for improvement or expansion to the original property.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "17b2928bee6da11bfcbf89b118b27938",
"text": "I'll compare it to a situation that is different, but will involve the same cash flow. Imagine the buyer agrees that you buy only 70% of the house right now, and the remaining 30% in 7 years time. It would be obviously fair to pay 70% of today's value today, pay 30% of a reasonable rent for 7 years (because 30% of the house isn't owned by you), then pay 30% of the value that the house has in 7 years time. 30% of the value in 7 years is the same as 30% of the value today, plus 30% of whatever the house gained in value. Instead you pay 70% of today's value, you pay no rent for the 30% that you don't own, then in 7 years time you pay 30% of today's value, plus 50% of whatever the house gained in value. So you are basically exchanging 30% of seven years rent, plus interest, for 20% of the gain in value over 7 years. Which might be zero. Or might be very little. Or a lot, in which case you are still better off. Obviously you need to set up a bullet proof contract. A lawyer will also tell you what to put into the contract in case the house burns down and can't be rebuilt, or you add an extension to the home which increases the value. And keep in mind that this is a good deal if the house doesn't increase in value, but if the house increases in value a lot, you benefit anyway. A paradoxical situation, where the worse the deal turns out to be after 7 years, the better the result for you. In addition, the relative carries the risk of non-payment, which the bank obviously is not willing to do.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c41f852b08b83393579937e981425a18
|
Why is the price of my investment only updated once per day?
|
[
{
"docid": "35c459b8792369297e41681430c55724",
"text": "Mutual funds are collections of investments that other people pay to join. It would be simpler to calculate the value of all these investments at one time each day, and then to deem that any purchases or sales happen at that price. The fund diversifies rather than magnifies risk, looking to hold rather than enjoy a quick turnaround. Nobody really needs hourly updated price information for an investment they intend to hold for decades. They quote their prices on a daily basis and you take the daily price. This makes sense for a vehicle that is a balanced collection of many different assets, most of which will have varying prices over the course a day. That makes pricing complicated. This primer explains mutual fund pricing and the requirements of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which mandates daily price reporting. It also illustrates the complexity: How does the fund pricing process work? Mutual fund pricing is an intensive process that takes place in a short time frame at the end of the day. Generally, a fund’s pricing process begins at the close of the New York Stock Exchange, normally 4 p.m. Eastern time. The fund’s accounting agent, which may be an affiliated entity such as the fund’s adviser, or a third-party servicer such as the fund’s administrator or custodian bank, is usually responsible for calculating the share price. The accounting agent obtains prices for the fund’s securities from pricing services and directly from brokers. Pricing services collect securities prices from exchanges, brokers, and other sources and then transmit them to the fund’s accounting agent. Fund accounting agents internally validate the prices received by subjecting them to various control procedures. For example, depending on the nature and extent of its holdings, a fund may use one or more pricing services to ensure accuracy. Note that under Rule 22c-1 forward pricing, fund shareholders receive the next daily price, not the last daily price. Forward pricing makes sense if you want shareholders to get the most accurate sale or purchase price, but not if you want purchasers and sellers to be able to make precise calculations about gains and losses (how can you be precise if the price won't be known until after you buy or sell?).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "036efd53242c21af7fc7cf45d6feb582",
"text": "Mutual funds are only traded once per day, while other securities can be traded any time during the day. Mutual funds are actually a collection of other things that have value, such as stocks. The price of a mutual fund is calculated at the end of the day after the market closes by looking at how much the collection of things changed in value during the day.",
"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": "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": "ae98e9950ffb69380d950ac90e2e8997",
"text": "\"There is no fundamental, good reason, I think; \"\"that's just how it's done\"\" (which is what all the other answers seem to be saying, w/o coming out and admitting it). Just guessing, but I'll bet most of the reason is historical: Before up-to-the-moment quotes were readily available, that was a bit tedious to calculate/update the fund's value, so enacted-laws let it be done just once per day. (@NL7 quotes the security act of 1940, which certainly has been updated, but also still might contain the results of crufty rationales, like this.) There are genuinely different issues between funds and stocks, though: One share of a fund is fundamentally different from one share of stock: There is a finite supply of Company-X-stock, and people are trading that piece of ownership around, and barter to find an mutually-agreeable-price. But when you buy into a mutual-fund, the mutual-fund \"\"suddenly has more shares\"\" -- it takes your money and uses it to buy shares of the underlying stocks (in a ratio equal to its current holdings). As a consequence: the mutual fund's price isn't determined by two people bartering and agreeing on a price (like stock); there is exactly one sane way to price a mutual fund, and that's the weighted total of its underlying stock. If you wanted to sell your ownership-of-Mutual-Fund-Z to a friend at 2:34pm, there wouldn't be any bartering, you'd just calculate the value based on the stated-value of the underlying stock at that exact moment. So: there's no inherent reason you can't instantaneously price a mutual fund. BUT people don't really buy/sell funds to each other -- they go to the fund-manager and essentially make a deposit-or-withdraw. The fund-manager is only required by law to do it once a day (and perhaps even forbidden from doing it more often?), so that's all they do. [Disclaimer: I know very little about markets and finance. But I recognize answers that are 'just because'.]\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "79d5438b0c557a93e7157a96506906bf",
"text": "I work on a buy-side firm, so I know how these small data issues can drive us crazy. Hope my answer below can help you: Reason for price difference: 1. Vendor and data source Basically, data providers such as Google and Yahoo redistribute EOD data by aggregating data from their vendors. Although the raw data is taken from the same exchanges, different vendors tend to collect them through different trading platforms. For example, Yahoo, is getting stock data from Hemscott (which was acquired by Morningstar), which is not the most accurate source of EOD stocks. Google gets data from Deutsche Börse. To make the process more complicated, each vendor can choose to get EOD data from another EOD data provider or the exchange itself, or they can produce their own open, high, low, close and volume from the actual trade tick-data, and these data may come from any exchanges. 2. Price Adjustment For equities data, the re-distributor usually adjusts the raw data by applying certain customized procedures. This includes adjustment for corporate actions, such as dividends and splits. For futures data, rolling is required, and back-ward and for-warding rolling can be chosen. Different adjustment methods can lead to different price display. 3. Extended trading hours Along with the growth of electronic trading, many market tends to trade during extended hours, such as pre-open and post-close trading periods. Futures and FX markets even trade around the clock. This leads to another freedom in price reporting: whether to include the price movement during the extended trading hours. Conclusion To cross-verify the true price, we should always check the price from the Exchange where the asset is actually traded. Given the convenience of getting EOD data nowadays, this task should be easy to achieve. In fact, for professional traders and investors alike, they will never reply price on free providers such as Yahoo and Google, they will most likely choose Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. However, for personal use, Yahoo and Google should both be good choices, and the difference is small enough to ignore.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2227038c0029b9fdd52d89545028260a",
"text": "The last column in the source data is volume (the number of stocks that was exchanged during the day), and it also has a value of zero for that day, meaning that nobody bought or sold the stocks on that day. And since the prices are prices of transactions (the first and the last one on a particular day, and the ones with the highest/lowest price), the prices cannot be established, and are irrelevant as there was not a single transaction on that day. Only the close price is assumed equal to its previous day counterpart because this is the most important value serving as a basis to determine the daily price change (and we assume no change in this case). Continuous-line charts also use this single value. Bar and candle charts usually display a blank space for a day where no trade occurred.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d21510e020a4614e78e632825b4328fa",
"text": "It does sometimes open one day the same as it closed the previous day. Take a look at ESCA, it closed October 29th at 4.50, at opened November 1st at 4.50. It's more likely to change prices overnight than it is between two successive ticks during the day, because a lot more time passes, in which news can come out, and in which people can reevaluate the stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "739a5cc8792b387f4c5766483658062d",
"text": "The dynamics of different contracts and liquidity can be quite different on the last day on the month and for intraday trade make sure you use bid-ask data as opposed to historical trades. I'm not saying whether it works or not, but im just giving you ideas to improve your testing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "00d64462b1b09ff604bb7c35a27c8c37",
"text": "All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "593f6298656a2b96117729003a4e30dd",
"text": "You bought 1 share of Google at $67.05 while it has a current trading price of $1204.11. Now, if you bought a widget for under $70 and it currently sells for over $1200 that is quite the increase, no? Be careful of what prices you enter into a portfolio tool as some people may be able to use options to have a strike price different than the current trading price by a sizable difference. Take the gain of $1122.06 on an initial cost of $82.05 for seeing where the 1367% is coming. User error on the portfolio will lead to misleading statistics I think as you meant to put in something else, right?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8b3c1cca904587c28af58db32522868",
"text": "The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted). The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change. That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "076ed20173f85274209c411312206559",
"text": "\"The price of a company's stock at any given moment is established by a ratio of buyers to sellers. When the sellers outnumber the buyers at a given price, the stock price drops until there are enough people willing to buy the stock to balance the equation again. When there are more people wanting to purchase a stock at a given price than people willing to sell it, the stock price rises until there are enough sellers to balance things again. So given this, it's easy to see that a very large fund (or collection of very large funds) buying or selling could drive the price of a stock in one direction or another (because the sheer number of shares they trade can tip the balance one way or another). What's important to keep in mind though is that the ratio of buyers to sellers at any given moment is determined by \"\"market sentiment\"\" and speculation. People selling a stock think the price is going down, and people buying it think it's going up; and these beliefs are strongly influenced by news coverage and available information relating to the company. So in the case of your company in the example that would be expected to triple in value in the next year; if everyone agreed that this was correct then the stock would triple almost instantly. The only reason the stock doesn't reach this value instantly is that the market is split between people thinking this is going to happen and people who think it won't. Over time, news coverage and new information will cause one side to appear more correct than the other and the balance will shift to drive the price up or down. All this is to say that YES, large funds and their movements CAN influence a stock's trading value; BUT their movements are based upon the same news, information, analysis and sentiment as the rest of the market. Meaning that the price of a stock is much more closely tied to news and available information than day to day trading volumes. In short, buying good companies at good prices is just as \"\"good\"\" as it's ever been. Also keep in mind that the fact that YOU can buy and sell stocks without having a huge impact on price is an ADVANTAGE that you have. By slipping in or out at the right times in major market movements you can do things that a massive investment fund simply cannot.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1004cf6b56fd3977ba674b6a4263bb37",
"text": "You can follow the intra-day NAV of an ETF, for instance SPY, by viewing its .IV (intra-day value) ticker which tracks it's value. http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=spy http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^SPY-IV Otherwise, each ETF provider will update their NAV after business each day on their own website. https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=spy",
"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": "f4f42a26d035479427867cc4eb653fc4",
"text": "Two reasons why I think that's irrelevant: First, if it was on 3/31/2012 (two other sources say it was actually 4/3/2012), why the big jump two trading days later? Second, the stock popped up from $3.10 to $4.11, then over the next several trading days fell right back to $3.12. If this were about the intrinsic value of the company, I'd expect the stock to retain some value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "96316907f30923f52fde39c6eb9b971b",
"text": "Well on a levered fund it makes a lot of sense. If you lose 10% on day one and you are 2x levered you just lost 20%. Now on the next day if it corrects 10% you are still down because you've gone up 20% of a lesser amount then you went down by. Then even worse with oil or commodity funds they are forced to roll their futures since they don't want to take delivery, which allows them to be picked off by traders. This is referred to as levered ETF decay. If you do trade levered funds it should be on an intraday basis, and then you're dealing with serious transaction costs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "145a5decacc13be14030121db03b4578",
"text": "The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c8ebeab922a88a6568179e1480ad73d",
"text": "\"Prices reflect all available information. (Efficient markets hypothesis) A lot can happen between the time a stock closes on one day and opens on another. Particularly in a heavily traded stock such as IBM. Basically, you have a different \"\"information set\"\" the following day, which implies a different price. The instances where you are most likely to have a stock where the price opens at the same price is at the previous close is a thinly traded stock on which you have little information, meaning that the \"\"information set\"\" changes less from day to day.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6eeae50d64c7628d4b012453cccd6cc4",
"text": "Is it correct that there is no limit on the length of the time that the company can keep the money raised from IPO of its stocks, unlike for the debt of the company where there is a limit? Yes that is correct, there is no limit. But a company can buy back its shares any time it wants. Anyone else can also buy shares on the market whenever they want.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a4b373049c546f68d864c3b817b1143b
|
Advice for college student: Should I hire a financial adviser or just invest in index funds?
|
[
{
"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": "a66bb6ad877cc8c8f549ac1c52d0608c",
"text": "\"Exactly what you do with the money depends on various personal choices you'll have to make for yourself. Investing your money in Vanguard index funds such as the ones you mentioned is certainly one smart move. However, I think you're quite right to be suspicious of an advisor with a 1% fee. In many cases, such advisors are not worth their costs. The thing to remember is that, typically with that type of fee structure, you always pay the costs, even if the advisor turns out to be wrong and your money doesn't grow. One thing to check is whether the advisor you mentioned is paid only by the fees he charges (a \"\"fee-only financial planner') , or whether he also makes money via the sales of financial products. Some advisors earn money by selling you financial products (such as mutual funds), which can create a conflict of interest. You can read about fee-only financial advisors and choosing a financial advisor on Investopedia.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "59e752763291a9e919e89b7865c2b2dc",
"text": "\"Two things to consider: When it comes to advice, don't be \"\"Penny wise and Pound foolish\"\". It is an ongoing debate whether active management vs passive indexes are a better choice, and I am sure others can give good arguments for both sides. I look at it as you are paying for advice. If your adviser will teach you about investing and serve your interests, having his advise will probably prevent you from making some dumb mistakes. A few mistakes (such as jumping in/out of markets based on fear/speculation) can eliminate any savings in fees. However, if you feel confident that you have the resources and can make good decisions, why pay for advise you don't need? EDIT In this case, my opinion is that you don't need a complex plan at this time. The money you would spend on financial advise would not be the best use of the funds. That said, to your main question, I would delay making any long-term decisions with these funds until you know you are done with your education and on an established career path. This period of your life can be very volatile, and you may find yourself halfway through college and wanting to change majors or start a different path. Give yourself the option to do that by deferring long-term investment decisions until you have more stability. For that reason, I would avoid focusing on retirement savings. As others point out, you are limited in how much you can contribute per year. If you want to start, ROTH is your best bet, but if you put it in don't pull it out. That is a bad habit to get into. Personal finance is as much about developing habits as it is doing math... A low-turnover index fund may be appropriate, but you don't want to end up where you want to buy a house or start a business and your investment has just lost 10%... I would keep at least half in a liquid, safe account until after graduation. Any debt you incur because you tied up this money will eliminate any investment gains (if any). Good Luck! EDITED to clarify retirement savings\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "876682d0505995629baef04108b13e64",
"text": "\"Though @mehassee mentioned it in a comment, I would like to emphasize the point that the financial planner (CFP) you talked to said that he was a fiduciary. A fiduciary has an obligation to act in your best interests. According to uslegal.com, \"\"When one person does agree to act for another in a fiduciary relationship, the law forbids the fiduciary from acting in any manner adverse or contrary to the interests of the client, or from acting for his own benefit in relation to the subject matter\"\". So, any of these Stack Exchange community members may or may not have your best interest at heart, but the financial advisor you talked to is obligated to. You have to decide for yourself, is it worth 1% of your investment to have someone legally obligated to have your best financial interest in mind, versus, for example, someone who might steer you to an overpriced insurance product in the guise of an investment, just so they can make a buck off of you? Or versus wandering the internet trying to make sense of conflicting advice? In my opinion, a fiduciary (registered CFP) is probably the best person to answer your questions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab5edd271f5b25ac7c596587f7e13ac2",
"text": "If you use a financial planner not only should they be a fiduciary but you should just pay them an hourly rate once a year instead of a percentage unless the percentage is cheaper at this time. To find a good one, go to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers website, NAPFA.org. Another good resource is Garrett Planning Network: GarrettPlanningNetwork.com.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ca345ea66f077eab164938dda4afdc2e",
"text": "\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "60c540abcf82bfac279538fd755a87c3",
"text": "\"The advice to \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills. Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "238b4afec99f3a2c7537e1b63f7a2661",
"text": "\"If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: \"\"I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?\"\" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:\"",
"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": ""
},
{
"docid": "abd2717d0bd18225adbb2f31cd3320ac",
"text": "\"A financial planner can help with investments, insurance, estate planning, budgeting, retirement planning, saving for college, tax planning/prep, and other money topics. One way to get a sense is to look at this Certified Financial Planner topic list. Another idea is to look at this book (my favorite I've read) which covers roughly a similar topic list in a concise form: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 It could not hurt at all to read that before deciding to visit a planner, so you have baseline knowledge. By the way, look for the CFP certification which is a generalist certification. A CFP might also have a deeper cert in certain topics or connect you with someone who does. For example: You really want a generalist (CFP) who may have an additional credential as well. The idea is to holistically look at what you're trying to accomplish and all finance-related areas. Especially because there may be tradeoffs. The CFP would then refer you to or work with lawyers, accountants, etc. Importantly, some advisors are fiduciaries (must act in your interests) and some are not. In particular many stockbrokers are neither qualified planners (no CFP or equivalent) nor are they fiduciaries. Stay away. There are several models for paying a financial planner, including: There's an organization called NAPFA (napfa.org) for fiduciary non-commission-based planners. Membership there is a good thing to look for since it's a third party that defines what fee-only means and requires the no-commissions/fiduciary standard. Finally, the alternative I ended up choosing was to just take the CFP course myself. You can do it online via correspondence course, it costs about the same as 1 year of professional advice. I also took the exam, just to be sure I learned the stuff. This is the \"\"extreme DIY\"\" approach but it is cheaper over time and you know you are not going to defraud yourself. You still might do things that are counterproductive and not in your interests, but you know that already probably ;-) Anyway I think it's equivalent to about a quarter's worth of work at a decent college, or so. There are about 6 textbooks to dig through. You won't be an experienced expert at the end, but you'll know a lot. To get an actual CFP cert, you need 3 years experience on top of the courses and the exam - I haven't done that, just the book learning. Someone who puts \"\"CFP\"\" after their name will have the 3 years on top of the training. Some editorial: many planners emphasize investing, and many people looking for planners (or books on finance) emphasize investing. This is a big mistake, in my view. Investing is more or less a commodity and you just need someone who won't screw it up, overcharge, and/or lose your money on something idiotic or inappropriate. Some people are in plain-bad and inappropriate investments, don't get me wrong. But once you fix that and just get into anything decent, your biggest planning concerns are probably elsewhere. On investments, I'd look for a planner to just get you out of overpriced annuities and expensive mutual funds you may have been sold (anything you were sold by a salesperson is probably crap). And look for them to help you decide how much to invest, and how much in stocks vs. bonds. Those are the most important investment decisions.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d5b0314fd8c99ab3e4976299d6c2bbf8",
"text": "At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax. Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "532e53a0fb994835777206b028413f9e",
"text": "\"You should certainly look into investments. If you don't expect to need the money until retirement, then I'd put it in an IRA so you get the tax advantages. It makes sense to keep some money handy \"\"just in case\"\", but $23k is a very large amount of money for an emergency fund. Of course much depends on your life situation, but I'm hard pressed to think of an unexpected emergency that would come up that would require $23k. If you're seriously planning to go back to school, then you might want to put the money in a non-retirement fund investment. As I write this -- September 2015 -- the stock market is falling, so if you expect to need the money within the next few months, putting it in the stock market may be a mistake. But long term, the stock market has always gone up, so it will almost certainly recover sooner or later. The question is just when. Investing versus paying off debts is a difficult decision. What is the interest rate on the debt? If it's more than you're likely to make on an investment, then you should pay off the debt first. (My broker recently told me that over the last few decades, the stock market has averaged 7% annual growth, so I'm using that as my working number.) If the interest rate is low, some people still prefer to pay off the debt because the interest is certain while the return on an investment is uncertain, and they're unwilling to take the risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd9a78556b28bf71945b4aadc1528b6d",
"text": "Certainly reading the recommended answers about initial investing is a great place to start and I highly recommend reading though that page for sure, but I also believe your situation is a little different than the one described as that person has already started their long-term career while you are still a couple years away. Now, tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs are amazingly good places to start building up retirement funds, but they also lock up the money and have a number of rules about withdrawals. You have fifteen thousand which is a great starting pot of money but college is likely to be done soon and there will likely be a number of expenses with the transition to full-time employment. Moving expenses, first month's rent, nursing exams, job search costs, maybe a car... all of this can be quite a lot especially if you are in a larger city. It sounds like your parents are very helpful though which is great. Make sure you have enough money for that transition and emergency expenses first and if there is a significant pool beyond that then start looking at investments. If you determine now is the best time to start than then above question is has great advice, but even if not it is still well worth taking some time to understand investing through that question, my favorite introduction book on the subject and maybe even a college course. So when you land that first solid nursing job and get situated you can start taking full advantage of the 401K and IRAs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "03a1aae9b4a1b33a37b3db492d41c044",
"text": "This is slightly opinion based. Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? At your age and the time period, I would say NO. This is because although the index fund do return 6-7% on average, there are several times it blips and goes negative as well. Stock Markets in short periods like 6 months can be unpredictable. At times a downturn will remain stagnant for periods of 2-3 years before suddenly zoom ahead. If you are not to particular about the time when you need the changes done; i.e. the changes can in worst case wait for few years; then yes investing in Index fund would make sense. Else you are well off keeping this in savings. Try CD's if they can offer better rates for such durations.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3752027275a54f8d477ceff2be25b5e8",
"text": "\"Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser. A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio. They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume. Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower. Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them. Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support. Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation. Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions. Basically, associate the term \"\"commission\"\" with \"\"conflict-of-interest\"\", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them. Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors. There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb03f6138adbaa94717ac50bc9a5fc1b",
"text": "\"When you hear advice to buy index funds, that usually comes with two additional pieces of investment discipline advice that are important: These two elements are important to give you relative predictability in your outcome 20 years from now. In this old blog post of mine I linked to Warren Buffett talking about this, also mentioned it in a comment on another answer: http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ It's perfectly plausible to do poorly over 20 years if you buy 100% stocks at once, without dollar-cost averaging or rebalancing. It's very very very plausible to do poorly over 10 years, such as the last 10 in fact. Can you really say you know your financial situation in 20-30 years, and for sure won't need that money? Because predictability is important, I like buying a balanced fund and not \"\"pure stocks\"\": http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ (feel a little bad linking to my blog, but retyping all that into this answer seems dumb!) Here's another tip. You can go one step past dollar cost averaging and try value averaging: http://www.amazon.com/Value-Averaging-Strategy-Investment-Classics/dp/0470049774 However, chances are you aren't even going to be good about rebalancing if it's done \"\"by hand,\"\" so personally I would not do value averaging unless you can find either a fund or a financial advisor to do it for you automatically. (Finance Buff blog makes a case for a financial advisor, in case you like that more than my balanced fund suggestion: http://thefinancebuff.com/the-average-investor-should-use-an-investment-advisor-how-to-find-one.html) Like rebalancing, value averaging makes you buy more when you're depressed about the market and less when it's exciting. It's hard. (Dollar cost averaging is easily done by setting up automatic investment, of course, so you don't have to do it manually in the way you would with value averaging.) If you read the usual canonical books on index funds and efficient markets it's easy to remember the takeaway that nobody knows whether the market will go up or down, and yes you won't successfully time the market. But what you can do successfully is use an investment discipline with risk control: assume that the market will fluctuate, that both up and down are likely and possible, and optimize for predictability in light of that. Most importantly, optimize to take your emotions and behavior out of the picture. Some disciplines for example are: there are dozens out there, many of them snake oil, I think these I mentioned are valid. Anyway, you need some form of risk control, and putting all your money in stocks at once doesn't give you a lot of risk control. There's no real need to get creative. A balanced fund that uses index funds for equity and bond portions is a great choice.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dea4714128a8836bd4209e0f0d58f0be",
"text": "Large and well-known companies are typically a good starting point. That doesn't mean that they are the best or even above average good, but at least they don't cheat you and run with your money. A core point is someone you pay, not the company whose investment he sell you. Although the latter seems cheaper on first glance, it isn't - if you pay him, his interest is to do good work for you; if they pay him, his interest is to sell you the product with the highest payment for him. That does not imply that they are all that way; it's just a risk. There are many good advisers that live from commissions, and still don't recommend you bad investments. Depending on the amounts, you could also read up a bit and open an account with a online investment company. It is discussable, but I think the cost for an adviser only starts to become worth it if you are deep into 5 digits of money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "22aae30b99bc424e431f3b18180e28d5",
"text": "\"A suitable mix of index funds IS a great option if you don't want to spend a lot of time and effort micromanaging your money. If you find amusement in pushing numbers around, you may be able to do better. Notice: MAY. If you have multiple millions, you can hire someone of that sort to push the numbers around for you. They may do better for you. Notice: MAY. And remember that part of your additional gains have to go to pay them, which means they have to do better just to be worth having on staff in the first place. If you have more than that, there are some options available which smaller investors really can't get involved in. As one example: If you have enough money that you can lose $100K without especially noticing, you can get involved in venture capital and the like which require a large commitment AND are higher-risk but can yield higher returns. Anyone who's dismissing index funds as \"\"only for beginners\"\" is being foolish. But recommending them to beginners in particular is a good thing since they let you get into the market with fairly predictable risk/benefits without needing a massive investment in education and time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f094f4d137e563cb3b3263b5ac6a04c4",
"text": "\"I'm not following what's the meaning of \"\"open a mutual fund\"\". You don't open a mutual fund, you invest in it. There's a minimum required investment ($2000? Could be, some funds have lower limits, you don't have to go with the Fidelity one necessarily), but in general it has nothing to do with your Roth IRA account. You can invest in mutual funds with any trading account, not just Roth IRA (or any other specific kind). If you invest in ETF's - you can invest in funds just as well (subject to the minimums set). As to the plan itself - buying and selling ETF's will cost you commission, ~2-3% of your investment. Over several months, you may get positive returns, and may get negative returns, but keep in mind that you start with the 2-3% loss on day 1. Within a short period of time, especially in the current economic climate (which is very unstable - just out of recession, election year, etc etc), I would think that keeping the cash in a savings account would be a better choice. While with ETF you don't have any guarantees other than -3%, then with savings accounts you can at least have a guaranteed return of ~1% APY (i.e.: won't earn much over the course of your internship, but you'll keep your money safe for your long term investment). For the long term - the fluctuations of month to month don't matter much, so investing now for the next 50 years - you shouldn't care about the stock market going 10% in April. So, keep your 1000 in savings account, and if you want to invest 5000 in your Roth IRA - invest it then. Assuming of course that you're completely positive about not needing this money in the next several decades.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "645f3af95a25383d388d8d95adaca232",
"text": "For the CPI, there is actually federal employees whose job it is to visit various stores to collect the prices of specific items (boy's size-14 collared shirt made of 97 percent cotton). Planet Money did a great podcast on this, actually following one of these people for a day.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
4fb3f0ba8857306ab54d03543ac043a4
|
First Time Home Buyers - Down Payment, PMI and Points
|
[
{
"docid": "d47d3e6a08b9cd9906a0b18a2a29bbf6",
"text": "1 - For FHA loans PMI is required for mortages where there is not at least 20% equity. Bank Financed Non-FHA loans may have other standards. If you are getting an FHA loan ,if possible put down 20% so that you do not have to pay PMI. That said your PMI costs should be reduced by the size of your down payment since the PMI covers the difference between your equity value (Based on the appraisal at time of purchase) and 20% equity value of the home. So if you buy a home for 425k(assuming 100% appraisal price) 20% equity would be 85k. So if you put 10% down you would be paying PMI until you accrue an addition 42500 in equity. And you will be paying PMI on that for about 12 years(typical on 30 year mortgage) or until you refinance(having home appraised at higher value than purchase price where you would have 20% equity). There are ways to get out of PMI early but few banks are willing to help you through the hoops unless you refinance(and pay more closing costs). 2 - Different banks offer better rates or other benefits for paying points. We paid $300 for a 1.5% reduction in our interest rate (less than 1%) but it was called a point. We were offered a few other points (.25% for 2500 and an one time on demand interest rate adjustment for ~3k) but declined but they may make more sense on a 425k home than our more modest one. You can talk to a banker about this now, get preapproved(which helps with getting offers accepted sometimes), and find out more details about the mortgage they will offer you. This meeting should be free(I would say will but some bank would charge just to prove me wrong) and help answer your questions more authoritatively than anyone here can. 3 - The costs will come out of your down payment. So if you put down 42.5k down your costs will come out of that. So you will probably end up with 30~35k being applied towards your purchase price with the rest going for costs. You can tell the banker you want to put 10% towards the price and the banker will give you a down payment probably around 50k to cover costs etc. (My figures are hopefully intentionally high better to find out that it will cost less than my guesstimate than get your hopes up just to find out the costs are higher than expected.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "729a274b75d31606e25221628517faca",
"text": "The question Why would refinancing my mortgage increase my PMI, even though rates are lower? contains a decent discussion of PMI. It's based on the total amount you borrow, not just the difference to 80% LTV. For easy math, Say you put 15% down on a $100K house. Your PMI is 1.1%, not on the 'missing' $5000, but on the $85000 balance. So you are paying $935/yr extra due to the $5000 you didn't have available. In addition to the mortgage itself. Even at 90% LTV, you'd pay $990/yr for the fact that you are short $10,000. Other than this discussion of PMI calculations, Chad's answer is pretty thorough.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7a16e7a60d19912d82df48675bb490c6",
"text": "\"I second DJClayworth's suggestion to wait and save a larger down-payment. I'll also add: It looks like you neglected to consider CMHC insurance in your calculation. When you buy your first home with less than 20% down, the bank will require you to insure the mortgage. CMHC insurance protects the bank if you default – it does not protect you. But such insurance does make a bank feel better about lending money to people it otherwise wouldn't take a chance on. The kicker is you would be responsible for paying the CMHC insurance that's protecting the bank. The premium is usually added on to the amount borrowed, since a buyer requiring CMHC insurance doesn't, by definition, have enough money up front. The standard CMHC premium for a mortgage with 5% down, or as they would say a \"\"95% Loan-to-Value ratio\"\" is 2.75%. Refer to CMHC's table of premiums here. So, if you had a down-payment of $17,000 to borrow a remaining $323,000 from the bank to buy a $340,000 property, the money you owe the bank would be $331,883 due to the added 2.75% CMHC insurance premium. This added $8883, plus interest, obviously makes the case for buying less compelling. Then, are there other closing costs that haven't been fully considered? One more thing I ought to mention: Have you considered saving a larger down-payment by using an RRSP? There's a significant advantage doing it that way: You can save pre-tax dollars for your down-payment. When it comes time to buy, you'd take advantage of the Home Buyer's Plan (HBP) and get a tax-free loan of your own money from your RRSP. You'd have 15 years to put the money back into your RRSP. Last, after saving a larger downpayment, if you're lucky you may find houses not as expensive when you're ready to buy. I acknowledge this is a speculative statement, and there's a chance houses may actually be more expensive, but there is mounting evidence and opinion that real estate is currently over-valued in Canada. Read here, here, and here.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e7f7a24bf514c80562b0fb0562fcf4c",
"text": "\"How can one offset exposure created by real-estate purchase? provides a similar discussion. Even if such a product were available in the precise increments you need, the pricing would make it a loser for you. \"\"There's no free lunch\"\" in this case, and the cost to insure against the downside would be disproportional to the true risk. Say you bought a $100K home. At today's valuations, the downside over a given year might be, say, 20%. It might cost you $5000 to 'insure' against that $20K risk. Let me offer an example - The SPY (S&P ETF) is now at $177. A $160 (Dec '14) put costs $7.50. So, if you fear a crash, you can pay 4%, but only get a return if the market falls by over 14%. If it falls 'just' 10%, you lose your premium. With only 5% down, you will get a far better risk-adjusted return by paying down the mortgage to <78% LTV, and requesting PMI, if any, be removed. Even if no PMI, in 5 years, you'll have 20% more equity than otherwise. Over the long term, 5 year's housing inflation would be ~ 15% or so. This process would help insure you are not underwater in that time. Not guarantee, but help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d09b34b720637430e86f14b7e1ad35b7",
"text": "You probably won't get a mortgage. UDSA has a 41% ratio of monthly debt to monthly income limit, and a score of 660 or better. A 250,000 mortgage at current rates for 30 year mortgage is about $1560/mo. (included in this figure is the 1% mortgage insurance premium, the .4% annual fee, the current rate for a 660 credit rating, the 2% points fee added at the front of the mortgage, typical closing cost added to transaction, and the .5% fee for over-mortgage insurance for the first 3 years since your mortgage will be higher than the value of the house due to these additional fees) Credit card payments = $120 ($60 times 2) Car payments = $542 ($271 for your car, $271 for the car you will be getting) Student loan = $50/month Child Support = $500/month Total = $2772/month Your income per month is 82000/12 = $6833/month $2772/$6833 = 40.6%... This is awfully close to the limit, so they likely would also look at your ability to save. Not seeing savings in the above example, I assume it is low. USDA site One mortgage help site breaks down some of the requirements into layman's language. Not knowing your exact location (county/state) and how many children you have, it is hard to be sure whether you make too much to qualify. This link shows the income limits by number of people in the house and the county/state. There are few places in which you could be living that would qualify you to any of their programs unless you have a several children. As others have posted, I suggest you get your debt down.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a680a9f0d4f37de93b4c4e4fec815b22",
"text": "\"The advice to pay off near-7% debt is tough to argue against. That said, I'd project out a few years to understand the home purchase. Will you plan for the 20% down John recommends? The Crazy Truth about PMI can't be ignored. The way the math works, if you put 15% down, the PMI costs you so much, it's nearly like paying 20% interest on that missing 5%. If your answer is that you intend to save for the full downpayment, 20%, and can still knock off the student loan, by all means, go for it. I have to question the validity of \"\"we will definitely be in a higher tax bracket when we retire.\"\" By definition, pretax deposits save tax at the marginal rate. i.e. If you are in the 25% bracket, a $1000 deposit saves you $250 in tax that year. But, withdrawals come at your average rate, i.e. your tax bill divided by gross income. There's the deductions for itemized deductions or the standard. Then 2 exemptions if you are married. Then the 10% bracket, etc. Today, a couple grossing $100K may be in the 25% bracket, but their average rate is 12%. I read this Q&A again and would add one more observation - Student Loans and Your First Mortgage is an article I wrote in response to a friend's similar question. With the OP having plan to buy a house, paying off the loan may be more costly in the long run. It may keep him from qualifying for the size mortgage he needs, or from having enough money to put 20% down, as I noted earlier. With finance, there are very few issues that are simply black and white. It's important to understand all aspects of one's finances to make any decision. Even if thee faster payoff is the right thing, it's not a slam-dunk, the other points should be considered.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9005a342e2f904ef62c7d337719a6f9a",
"text": "\"This is not a full answer and I have no personal finance experience. But I have a personal story as I did this. As Vicky stated Another point: there are various schemes available to help first time buyers. By signing up for this, you would exclude yourself from any of those schemes in the future. I did this for my dad when I was 16 or so. I am in Canada and lost $5,000 first time buyers tax rebate. As long as many other bonuses like using your rsps for your first home. I also am having a fair amount of trouble getting a credit card, because even though I am only a part member of the mortgage they expect you to be able to cover the whole thing. So when the banks look at my income of say $3000 a month they say \"\"3000 - rent(500) - mortgage(3000)\"\" You make $-500 a month. I then explain that I do not actually pay the mortage so it is not coming out of my paycheck. They do not care. I am responsible for full payments and they consider it used.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "39d5031d5986136c4c29598f88e3bb45",
"text": "After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house. 5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate. The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right. That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds. As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment? There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal. Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf5a0b627cb0a5e11a1dadec1b43be54",
"text": "I'm of the belief that you should always put 20% down. The lower interest rate will save you thousands over the life of the loan. Also PMI is no different then burning that much cash in the fireplace every month. From Wikipedia Lenders Mortgage Insurance (LMI), also known as Private mortgage insurance (PMI) in the US, is insurance payable to a lender or trustee for a pool of securities that may be required when taking out a mortgage loan. It is insurance to offset losses in the case where a mortgagor is not able to repay the loan and the lender is not able to recover its costs after foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged property. You are basically paying money each month for the bank to be insured against you not paying your mortgage. But in actuality the asset of the condo should be that insurance. Only you can decide if you are comfortable with having $50k in liquidity or not. It sounds like a good cushion to me but I don't know the rest of your expenses.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "233e4af509968b677f3d514250ad9cf6",
"text": "Its a huuuuuuuuuuuge topic, and to answer your question in full will require a book, with a small booklet of legal advice attached to it. I'm not going to write it here, but I'll give you some very specific points to start your research with: ARM/Baloon - big NO NO. Don't touch that. Get rid of those you have any way you can, and then never ever do it again. That's the kind of crap that got us into the housing bubble mess to begin with. Especially with the rates as low as now, the only future with ARM/Baloon is that you're going to pay more, way more, than your initial period payments. Rates - the rates now are very low. They were even lower 12-24 months ago, but are still extremely low. Make sure you get a fixed rate loan, in order to lock these rates in for the remainder of the loan. Any ARM loan will have higher rates in the future. So go with FIXED RATE. Period - fixed rate loans are given for periods up to 30 years. The shorter the period, the lower the rate. However, at the level they're now, you're practically getting money for free (the APR is comparable to the inflation) even for 30 yr/fixed loans. PMI - private mortgage insurance - since you don't have much equity, the lender is likely to require you paying PMI. This is a significant amount of money you pay until you have at least 20% equity. It changes from lender to lender, so shop around and compare. Government assistance - that's what the broker was referring to. There were programs allowing people refinance even under-water mortgages. Check what programs are still available in your area. Some banks will not refinance with less than 20% equity, but some government assistance programs may help you get a loan even if you don't have enough equity. Closing fees and points - that's the money out of your pocket. Shop around, these vary wildly. Generally, Credit Unions, being non-profits, are cheaper on this item specifically, while comparable to big banks on everything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b7dca82d5a3566ac7bb43869420fd74",
"text": "You understand it perfectly right. The thing with PMI is that when your home price rises (or your loan balance goes down) so that your loan balance is below the 80% of the current house price, the PMI goes away. The higher rate - does not. So, no-PMI option is much better. To the bank, as you suspected. Your calculations are correct. With the PMI you'll pay less interest, and more balance. As to the tax deductions, interest can be deducted, but the PMI - no (starting of 2012, to the best of my understanding, at least). See details here, consult a tax professional for more current information.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23f08b5e85a46978c831a05245b1321d",
"text": "It's worthwhile to try and find a better minimum down-payment. When I bought my home, I got an FHA loan, which drastically reduced the minimum down-payment required (I think the minimum is 3% under FHA). Be aware that any down-payment percentage under 20% means that you'll have to pay for private mortgage insurance (PMI) as part of your monthly mortgage. Here's a good definition of it. Part of the challenge you're experiencing may be that banks are only now exercising the due diligence with borrowers for mortgages that they should have been all along. I hope you're successful in finding the right payment. Getting a mortgage to reduce your spending on housing relative to rent is a wise move. In addition to fixing your monthly costs at a consistent level (unlike rent, which can rise for reasons you don't control), the mortgage interest deduction makes for a rather helpful tax benefit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "886e10a51f92d7a079ec4b39db998528",
"text": "\"I love the idea of #1, keep that going. I don't think #2 is very realistic. Given the short time frame putting money at risk for a higher yield may not work in your favor. If it was me, I'd stick to a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account (around 1%). I don't mind #3 either, however, I'd be socking whatever you could to mortgage principle so you can get out of PMI sooner rather than later. That would be my top priority. Given the status of interest rates, you may end up saving money in the long run. I doubt it, but you may. If you choose to go with #3, don't settle for a house that you really don't like. Get something that you want. Who knows it may take you a year or so to find something!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b19485d48912744b6d9b8497f8acad0c",
"text": "What you want to do is figure out how much you're paying in interest, solely (ie, the interest part of each payment), add that up over 48 months, then figure out the net value of the cash inflow/outflow for the points over 48 months (ie, 3.5% annual return on the positive or negative value). Sum those two. Then you can see your P&L, and your total cash outflow (up to you if you add a % to your negative initial outflow, and how exactly you consider your $2k closing costs; I agree with JoeTaxpayer about adding at least closing costs to the loan amount. If you have money to pay the points that would otherwise be earning money, you could alternately consider it a negative cash (ie, instead of accruing 3.5% it's a negative balance accruing that). In excel I'd do something like: Then track changes in H and I when you change columns B and C and G.",
"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": "54100a57d47534dc11922682d2510962",
"text": "In the prior PMI discussions here, it's been stated that the bank is not obligated to remove PMI until the mortgage's natural amortization puts the debt at 78% LTV. So, paying in advance like this will not automatically remove the PMI. Nor will a lump sum payment be certain to move the next payment ahead a year. If it's entered as a principal prepayment, the next month's payment is still due. In the world of coupon books, if you sent in a year's payments, you'd not benefit from the interest saved, in one year you'd owe what the amortization table tells you. There's no free lunch when it comes to mortgages or finance in general. This is why we usually caution that one should not be cash poor the day after buying a house. Best to save 30%, put down 20%, and have a cushion after the closing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc29100c3e89b4db2e5cfe70a2a70094",
"text": "The loan you will just have to get by applying to a bunch of banks or hiring someone (a broker) to line up bank financing on your behalf for a point on the loan. FHA is for your first house that you live in and allows you to get 97.5% loan to cost financing. That isn't for investment properties. However, FHA loans do exist for multifamily properties under section 207/223F. Your corporations should be SPEs so they don't affect each other. In the end, its up to you if you think it makes sense for all the single family homes to be in one portfolio. May make it easier to refi if you put all the properties in a cross collateralized pool for the bank to lend against. There is also no requirement for how long a corporation has been in existence for a loan. The loan has a claim on the property so it's pretty safe. So long as you haven't committed fraud before, they won't care about credit history.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a59ec5e0e0c8307b95a0fba798ceb725
|
Fundamentals of creating a diversified portfolio based on numbers?
|
[
{
"docid": "2acc65e1c1d641b51d9fde9c07c5b061",
"text": "Good question. There are plenty of investors who think they can simply rely on intuition, and although luck is always present it is not enough to construct a proper portfolio. First of all there are two basic types of portfolio management: Passive and Active. The majority of abnormal gains are made with active portfolio management although passive managers are less likely to suffer loses. Both types must be created with some kind of qualitative and quantitative research, but an active portfolio requires constant adjustments (Market Timing) to preserve the desired levels of risk and return. The topic is extremely broad and every manager has his own preferred methods of quantitative analysis. I will try to list here some most common, in my opinion, ways of stock-picking and portfolio management. Roy's Criterion: The best portfolio is that with the lowest probability that the return will be below a specified level. This is achieved by maximising the number of standard deviations between the return on the portfolio and minimum specified level: Max k = (Rp-Rl)/Sp Where (Rp) - return on portfolio, (Rl) - specified minimum return, (Sp) - standard deviation of portfolio return. Kataoka's Criterion: Maximise the minimum return (Rl) subject to constraint that the chance of a return below (Rl) is less than or equal to a specified value (a). Maximise (Rl) Subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a For example, assume that the specified value is 20% - this will be met provided (Rl) is at least 0.84 standard deviations below (Rp). Therefore the best portfolio is the one that maximises (Rl) where: Rl = Rp-0.84*Sp Telser's Criterion: Maximise expected return subject to the constraint that the chance of a return below the specified minimum is less than or equal to some specified minimum (a) Maximise (Rp) subject to Prob (Rp < Rl) =< a Assuming same data as previously: Rl =< Rp-0.84*Sp and select the portfolio with highest expected return. Security Selection Now let's look at some methods of security selection. This is important when a manager believes some shares are mispriced. The required return on security 'i' is given by: Ri = Rf+(Rm-Rf)Bi Where (Rf) - is a risk-free rate, (Rm) - return on the market, (Bi) - security's beta. The difference between the required return and the actual return expected is known as the security's alpha (Ai). Ai = Rai - Ri, where (Rai) is actual return on security 'i'. Stock Picking One way of stock-picking is to select portfolios of securities with positive alphas. Alpha of a portfolio is simply the weighted average of the alphas of the securities in the portfolio. Ap = {(n*Ai) Where ({) is sigma (sorry for such weird typing, haven't figured out yet how to type proper-looking formulas), (n) - share of 'i'th security in portfolio. So another way of stock-picking is ranking securities by their excess return to beta (ERB): ERB = (Ri - Rf)/Bi The greater the ERB the more desirable the security and the greater the proportion it will make up of the portfolio. Thus portfolios produced by this technique will have greater proportion of some securities than the market portfolio and lower proportions of other securities. The number of securities depends on a cut-off rate (C*) for the ERB, defined so that all securities with ERB>C* are included in portfolio while if ERB The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below): Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio: Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are: Market Timing Hedging Stocks vs Bonds Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market. The cut-off rate for a portfolio containing the first 'j' securities is given by (i'm inserting an image cut from Word below): Here comes the tricky part: Basically what you do is first calculate ERB for each security, then calculate Cj for each security mix (gradually adding new securities one by one and recalculating Cj each time). Then you select an optimum portfolio by comparing Cj of each mix to ERB's of it's securities. Let me show you a simple example: Say you have securities A,B,C and D you calculated ERB's: ERB(a)=6, ERB(b)=6.5, ERB(c)=5, ERB(d)=4 also you calculated: C(a)=4.1, C(ab)=4.8, C(abc)=4.9, C(abcd)=4.5. Then you check: ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(a), but C(a) only contains security A so C(a) is not an optimum mix. ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(ab), but C(ab) only contains securities A and B ERB(a),ERB(b),ERB(c) are greater than C(abc), and C(abc) contains A B and C so it is an optimum. ERB(d) is lower than C(abcd) so C(abcd) is not an optimum portfolio. Finally the most important part: Below is a formula to find the share of each security in the portfolio: Here you simply plug in already obtained values for each security to find it's proportion in your portfolio. I hope this somehow answers your question, however there is a lot more than this to consider if you decide to manage your portfolio yourself. Some of the most important areas are: Good luck with your investments! And remember, the safest portfolio is the one that replicates the Global Market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af7535b950b00daa65f3e587fcb3e827",
"text": "Most of the “recommendations” are just total market allocations. Within domestic stocks, the performance rotates. Sometimes large cap outperform, sometimes small cap outperform. You can see the chart here (examine year by year): https://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1428692400000&chddm=99646&chls=IntervalBasedLine&cmpto=NYSEARCA:VO;NYSEARCA:VB&cmptdms=0;0&q=NYSEARCA:VV&ntsp=0&ei=_sIqVbHYB4HDrgGA-oGoDA Conventional wisdom is to buy the entire market. If large cap currently make up 80% of the market, you would allocate 80% of domestic stocks to large cap. Same case with International Stocks (Developed). If Japan and UK make up the largest market internationally, then so be it. Similar case with domestic bonds, it is usually total bond market allocation in the beginning. Then there is the question of when you want to withdraw the money. If you are withdrawing in a couple years, you do not want to expose too much to currency risks, thus you would allocate less to international markets. If you are investing for retirement, you will get the total world market. Then there is the question of risk tolerance. Bonds are somewhat negatively correlated with Stocks. When stock dips by 5% in a month, bonds might go up by 2%. Under normal circumstances they both go upward. Bond/Stock allocation ratio is by age I’m sure you knew that already. Then there is the case of Modern portfolio theory. There will be slight adjustments to the ETF weights if it is found that adjusting them would give a smaller portfolio variance, while sacrificing small gains. You can try it yourself using Excel solver. There is a strategy called Sector Rotation. Google it and you will find examples of overweighting the winners periodically. It is difficult to time the rotation, but Healthcare has somehow consistently outperformed. Nonetheless, those “recommendations” you mentioned are likely to be market allocations again. The “Robo-advisors” list out every asset allocation in detail to make you feel overwhelmed and resort to using their service. In extreme cases, they can even break down the holdings to 2/3/4 digit Standard Industrial Classification codes, or break down the bond duration etc. Some “Robo-advisors” would suggest you as many ETF as possible to increase trade commissions (if it isn’t commission free). For example, suggesting you to buy VB, VO, VV instead a VTI.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8991c2b5f83443694502854949ff78d",
"text": "Your question is a complex one because knowledge of the investor's beliefs about the market is required. For almost any quantitative portfolio, one must have a good estimate of the expected return vector and covariance matrix of the assets in question. The expected return vector, in particular, is far from estimable. No one agrees on it and there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. In a world satisfying the conditions of the CAPM, you can bypass this problem because the main implication of the CAPM is that the market weights are optimal. In that case the answer to your question is that you should determine the market weights of the various assets and use those along with saving in a risk-free account or borrowing, depending on your risk tolerance. This portfolio has the added benefit that you don't need to rebalance much...the weights in your portfolio adjust at the same rate as the market weights. Any portfolio that has something besides this also includes some notion of expected return aside from CAPM fair pricing. The question for you, then, is whether you have such a notion. If you do, you can mix your information with the market weights to come up with a portfolio. This is what the Black-Litterman method does, for example: get the expected return vector implied by market weights and the covariance matrix, mix with your expected return vector, then use mean-variance optimization to come up with your final weights.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1bea3acc878bbc52ef38fcc73324835a",
"text": "\"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"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": "13bb3594d0833e52ea096698f9bc2d70",
"text": "Basically, diversifying narrows the spread of possible results, raising the center of the returns bell-curve by reducing the likelihood of extreme results at either the high or low end. It's largely a matter of basic statistics. Bet double-or-nothing on a single coin flip, and those are the only possible results, and your odds of a disaster (losing most or all of the money) are 50%. Bet half of it on each of two coin flips, and your odds of losing are reduced to 25% at the cost of reducing your odds of winning to 25%, with 50% odds that you retain your money and can try the game again. Three coins divides the space further; the extremes are reduced to 12.5% each, with the middle being most likely. If that was all there was, this would be a zero-sum game and pure gambling. But the stock market is actually positive-sum, since companies are delivering part of their profits to their stockholder owners. This moves the center of the bell curve up a bit from break-even, historically to about +8%. This is why index funds produce a profit with very little active decision; they treat the variation as mostly random (which seems to work statistically) and just try to capture average results of a (hopefully) slightly above-average bucket of stocks and/or bonds. This approach is boring. It will never double your money overnight. On the other hand, it will never wipe you out overnight. If you have patience and are willing to let compound interest work for you, and trust that most market swings regress to the mean in the long run, it quietly builds your savings while not driving you crazy worrying about it. If all you are looking for is better return than the banks, and you have a reasonable amount of time before you need to pull the funds out, it's one of the more reliably predictable risk/reward trade-off points. You may want to refine this by biasing the mix of what you're holding. The simplest adjustment is how much you keep in each of several major investment categories. Large cap stocks, small cap stocks, bonds, and real estate (in the form of REITs) each have different baseline risk/return curves, and move in different ways in response to news, so maintaining a selected ratio between these buckets and adding the resulting curves together is one simple way to make fairly predictable adjustments to the width (and centerline) of the total bell curve. If you think you can do better than this, go for it. But index funds have been outperforming professionally managed funds (after the management fees are accounted for), and unless you are interested in spending a lot of time researching and playing with your money the odds of your doing much better aren't great unless you're willing to risk doing much worse. For me, boring is good. I want my savings to work for me rather than the other way around, and I don't consider the market at all interesting as a game. Others will feel differently.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "01ca7a270f24ca65876327fe39ebc516",
"text": "\"John Bensin's answer covers the math, but I like the plain-English examples of the theory from William Bernstein's fine book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator. At the author's web site, you can find the complete chapter 1 and chapter 2, though not chapter 3, which is the one with the \"\"multiple coin toss\"\" portfolio example I want to highlight. I'll summarize Bernstein's multiple coin toss example here with some excerpts from the book. (Another top user, @JoeTaxpayer, has also written about the coin flip on his blog, also mentioning Bernstein's book.) Bernstein begins Chapter 1 by describing an offer from a fictitious \"\"Uncle Fred\"\": Imagine that you work for your rich but eccentric Uncle Fred. [...] he decides to let you in on the company pension plan. [...] you must pick ahead of time one of two investment choices for the duration of your employment: Certificates of deposit with a 3% annualized rate of return, or, A most peculiar option: At the end of each year Uncle Fred flips a coin. Heads you receive a 30% investment return for that year, tails a minus 10% (loss) for the year. This will be hereafter referred to as \"\"Uncle Fred’s coin toss,\"\" or simply, the \"\"coin toss.\"\" In effect, choosing option 2 results in a higher expected return than option 1, but it is certainly riskier, having a high standard deviation and being especially prone to a series of bad tosses. Chapters 1 and 2 continue to expand on the idea of risk, and take a look at various assets/markets over time. Chapter 3 then begins by introducing the multiple coin toss example: Time passes. You have spent several more years in the employ of your Uncle Fred, and have truly grown to dread the annual coin-toss sessions. [...] He makes you another offer. At the end of each year, he will divide your pension account into two equal parts and conduct a separate coin toss for each half [...] there are four possible outcomes [...]: [...] Being handy with numbers, you calculate that your annualized return for this two-coin-toss sequence is 9.08%, which is nearly a full percentage point higher than your previous expected return of 8.17% with only one coin toss. Even more amazingly, you realize that your risk has been reduced — with the addition of two returns at the mean of 10%, your calculated standard deviation is now only 14.14%, as opposed to 20% for the single coin toss. [...] Dividing your portfolio between assets with uncorrelated results increases return while decreasing risk. [...] If the second coin toss were perfectly inversely correlated with the first and always gave the opposite result [hence, outcomes 1 and 4 above never occurring], then our return would always be 10%. In this case, we would have a 10% annualized long-term return with zero risk! I hope that summarizes the example well. Of course, in the real world, one of the tricks to building a good portfolio is finding assets that aren't well-correlated, and if you're interested in more on the subject I suggest you check out his books (including The Four Pillars of Investing) and read more about Modern Portfolio Theory (MPT).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d48668c03c328eebe5c349e9895587fc",
"text": "Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5f1566f3bcced560b9b1cdda113c0d40",
"text": "The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.",
"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": "fbd7141c4bc604e0757f190f9e0f26c9",
"text": "\"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \"\"strategy\"\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8f4d0b823ec45f1f14ee70df1183374",
"text": "It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter. Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends). One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described. But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities. That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that. We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios. That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices. It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ef2333f4c4257d4aefca364d3906bda",
"text": "What explains the most of the future returns of a portfolio is the allocation between asset classes. In the long term, stock investments are almost certain to return more than any other kinds of investments. For 40+ years, I would choose a portfolio of 100% stocks. How to construct the portfolio, then? Diversification is the key. You should diversify in time (don't put a large sum of money into your stock portfolio immediately; if you have a large sum to invest, spread it around several years). You should diversify based on company size (invest in both large and small companies). You should also diversify internationally (don't invest in just US companies). If you prefer to pick individual stocks, 20 very carefully selected stocks may provide enough diversification if you keep diversification in mind during stock picking. However, careful stock picking cannot be expected to yield excess returns, and if you pick stocks manually, you need to rebalance your portfolio occasionally. Thus, if you're lazy, I would recommend a mutual fund, or many mutual funds if you have difficulty finding a low-cost one that is internationally diversified. The most important consideration is the cost. You cannot expect careful fund selection to yield excess returns before expenses. However, the expenses are certain costs, so prefer low-cost funds. Almost always this means picking index funds. Avoid funds that have a small number of stocks, because they typically invest only in the largest companies, which means you fail to get diversification in company size. So, instead of Euro STOXX 50, select STOXX 600 when investing to the European market. ETFs may have lower costs than traditional mutual funds, so keep ETFs in mind when selecting the mutual funds in which to invest. For international diversification, do not forget emerging markets. It is not excessive to invest e.g. 20% to emerging markets. Emerging markets have a higher risk but they also have a higher return. A portfolio that does not include emerging markets is not in my opinion well diversified. When getting close to retirement age, I would consider increasing the percentage of bonds in the portfolio. This should be done primarily by putting additional money to bonds instead of selling existing investments to avoid additional taxes (not sure if this applies to other taxation systems than the Finnish one). Bond investments are best made though low-cost mutual funds as well. Keep bond investments in your local currency and risk-free assets (i.e. select US government bonds). Whatever you do, remember that historical return is no guarantee of future return. Actually, the opposite may be true: there is a mean reversion law. If a particular investment has returned well in the past, it often means its price has gone up, making it more likely that the price goes down in the future. So don't select a fund based on its historical return; instead, select a fund based on low costs. However, I'm 99% certain that over a period of 40 years, stocks will return better than other investments. In addition to fund costs, taxes are the other certain thing that will be deducted from your returns. Research what options you have to reduce the taxes you need to pay. 401-K was explained in another answer; this may be a good option. Some things recommended in other answers that I would avoid:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd0cdb33bb16c2cd9885660a2f39574d",
"text": "The article links to William Bernstein’s plan that he outlined for Business Insider, which says: Modelling this investment strategy Picking three funds from Google and running some numbers. The international stock index only goes back to April 29th 1996, so a run of 21 years was modelled. Based on 15% of a salary of $550 per month with various annual raises: Broadly speaking, this investment doubles the value of the contributions over two decades. Note: Rebalancing fees are not included in the simulation. Below is the code used to run the simulation. If you have Mathematica you can try with different funds. Notice above how the bond index (VBMFX) preserves value during the 2008 crash. This illustrates the rationale for diversifying across different fund types.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "642b86f98a538677ffa13426a8d71943",
"text": "Is it POSSIBLE? Of course. I don't even need to do any research to prove that. Just some mathematical reasoning: Take the S&P 500. Find the performance of each stock in that list over whatever time period you want to use for your experiment. Now select some number of the best-performing stocks from the list -- any number less than 500. By definition, the X best must be better than or equal to the average. Assuming all the stocks on the S&P did not have EXACTLY the same performance, these 10 must be better than average. You now have a diversified portfolio that performed better than the S&P 500 index fund. Of course as they always say in a prospectus, past performance is not a guarantee of future performance. It's certainly possible to do. The question is, if YOU selected the stocks making up a diversified portfolio, would your selections do better than an index fund?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5c857c04427909172b1463baf2887b5b",
"text": "\"Yes, a diversified portfolio can generate greater returns than the S&P 500 by going OUTSIDE it. For instance, small stocks (on average) generate higher returns than the \"\"large caps\"\" found in the S&P 500. So if you own a diversified portfolio of stocks, some of which are smaller (in market cap) than the typical S&P 500 stock, you have a chance to outperform. You might also outperform by owning other asset classes than stocks such as gold, real estate, and timber (among others) at appropriate times. (You may also be able to get the relevant exposure by owning gold and timber stocks and REITS.) This was a lesson that David Swensen of the Yale endowment taught us.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ebb20a00f7a59b2682b77987bd4151f6",
"text": "The steps you outlined are fine by themselves. Step 5, seeking criticism can be less helpful than one may think. See stocktwits.com There are a lot of opposing opinions all of which can be correct over different time-frames. Try and quantify your confidence and develop different strategies for different confidence levels. I was never smart enough or patient with follow through to be a successful value investor. It was very frustrating to watch stocks trade sideways for years before the company's intrinsic value was better reflected in the market. Also, you could make an excellent pick, but a macro change and slump could set you back a year and raise doubts. In my experience portfolio management techniques like asset allocation and dollar-cost-averaging is what made my version of value investing work. Your interest in 10k/10q is something to applaud. Is there something specific about 10k/10q that you do not understand? Context is key, these types of reports are more relevant and understandable when compared to competitors in the same sector. It is good to assess over confidence! It is also good to diversify your knowledge and the effort put into Securities Analysis 6th edition will help with other books in the field. I see a bit of myself in your post, and if you are like me, than subsequent readings, and full mastery of the concepts in 'Securities & Analysis 6th ed.' will lead to over confidence, or a false understanding as there are many factors at play in the market. So many, that even the most scientific approaches to investing can just as equally be described as an 'art'. I'm not aware of the details of your situation, but in general, for you to fully realize the benefits from applying the principals of value investing shared by Graham and more recently Warren Buffett, you must invest on the level that requires use of the consolidation or equity method of accounting, e.g. > 20% ownership. Sure, the same principals used by Buffett can work on a smaller scale, but a small scale investor is best served by wealth accumulation, which can take many forms. Not the addition of instant equity via acquisitions to their consolidated financials. Lastly, to test what you have learned about value investing, and order execution, try the inverse. At least on paper. Short a stock with low value and a high P/E. TWTR may be a good example? Learn what it is like to have your resources at stake, and the anguish of market and security volatility. It would be a lot easier to wait it out as a long-term value investor from a beach house in Santa Barbara :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f87db8d477d31f9aafafbeeae7a91cd3",
"text": "\"One approach is to invest in \"\"allocation\"\" mutual funds that use various methods to vary their asset allocation. Some examples (these are not recommendations; just to show you what I am talking about): A good way to identify a useful allocation fund is to look at the \"\"R-squared\"\" (correlation) with indexes on Morningstar. If the allocation fund has a 90-plus R-squared with any index, it probably isn't doing a lot. If it's relatively uncorrelated, then the manager is not index-hugging, but is making decisions to give you different risks from the index. If you put 10% of your portfolio in a fund that varies allocation to stocks from 25% to 75%, then your allocation to stocks created by that 10% would be between 2.5% to 7.5% depending on the views of the fund manager. You can use that type of calculation to invest enough in allocation funds to allow your overall allocation to vary within a desired range, and then you could put the rest of your money in index funds or whatever you normally use. You can think of this as diversifying across investment discipline in addition to across asset class. Another approach is to simply rely on your already balanced portfolio and enjoy any downturns in stocks as an opportunity to rebalance and buy some stocks at a lower price. Then enjoy any run-up as an opportunity to rebalance and sell some stocks at a high price. The difficulty of course is going through with the rebalance. This is one advantage of all-in-one funds (target date, \"\"lifecycle,\"\" balanced, they have many names), they will always go through with the rebalance for you - and you can't \"\"see\"\" each bucket in order to get stressed about it. i.e. it's important to think of your portfolio as a whole, not look at the loss in the stocks portion. An all-in-one fund keeps you from seeing the stocks-by-themselves loss number, which is a good way to trick yourself into behaving sensibly. If you want to rebalance \"\"more aggressively\"\" then look at value averaging (search for \"\"value averaging\"\" on this site for example). A questionable approach is flat-out market-timing, where you try to get out and back in at the right times; a variation on this would be to buy put options at certain times; the problem is that it's just too hard. I think it makes more sense to buy an allocation fund that does this for you. If you do market time, you want to go in and out gradually, and value averaging is one way to do that.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
6540ddd71ea48f5d344288cc038c63e1
|
How much time does a doctor's office have to collect balance from me?
|
[
{
"docid": "79f3951e521b723d7cec441f8987995e",
"text": "\"They have forever to collect a balance from you. Furthermore they can add whatever penalties and fees they wish to increase that balance. Worst of all, they don't have to remind you or send you bills or any other notification. You owed it when you left the office. (There very well could be local laws that require notifications, but that isn't really the issue here.) That dentist has every right to deny you service until you settle the account. Forever. The statute of limitations on collecting that debt via court: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/savings/when-does-your-debt-expire.aspx Which covers the rules on HOW LONG they have to collect the debt. Owing the money is one thing, but the rules and tools that you creditor has to collect the debt are another. You are probably worried about them suing you. But if you don't pay the debt (or settle in some way), that dentist can refuse to provide services to you, even if they write off the debt. Ways you can be punished by your dentist for not paying the bill are: Depending on your jurisdiction and/or type of debt, they typically only report it on your credit (if they are reporting at all) for 7 years. Even if you pay and settle the account, it will still be reported on your credit report for 7 years. The difference is how it is reported. They can report that \"\"user133466 is a super reliable person who always pays debts on time\"\". They can say \"\"user133466 is a flake who pays, but takes a while to pay\"\". Or they can say \"\"user133466 is a bad person to provide services before collecting money, because user133466 don't pay bills\"\". Other people considering lending you money are going to read these opinions and decide accordingly if they want to deal with you or not. And they can say that for 7 years. The idea of credit reporting is that you settle up as soon as possible and get your credit report to reflect the truth. One popular way to collect a debt to is to sue you for it. There, each state has a different time period on how long a creditor has to sue you for a debt. http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit-cards/state-statutes-of-limitations-for-old-debts-1.aspx If you pay part of the debt, that will often reset the clock on the statute of limitations, so be sure any partial or negotiated settlements state very clearly, in writing, that payment is considered payment in full on the debt. Then you keep that record forever. There are other interesting points in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. See Debt collectors calling? Know your rights. They can only contact you in certain ways, they must respond to you in certain ways, and they have limits on what they can say, who they can say it to, and when they can say it. There are protections from mean or vicious bill collectors, but that doesn't sound like who you are dealing with. I don't know that the FDCPA is a tool you need to use in this case. You should negotiate your debt and try your best to settle up. From your post, both parties dropped the ball, and both parties should give a little. You should pay no or minor late fees, and the doctor should report your credit positively when you do so. If you both made honest mistakes, they both parties should acknowledge that and be fair, and not defensive. This is not legal advice. But you owe the debt, so you should settle up. I don't think it is fair for you to not pay because they didn't mail you a paper. However I also do not think it is fair for the doctor to run up fees and not remind you of the bill. Finally, you didn't bring up insurance or many other details. Those details can change the answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4d0c174c50cc545ba42074ac6553474",
"text": "If they had told me that I owe them $10,000 from 3 years ago, I wouldn't have anything to fight back. Why? First thing you have to do is ask for a proof. Have you received treatment? Have you signed the bill when you were done? This should include all the information about what you got and how much you agreed to pay. Do they have that to show to you, with your signature on it? If they don't - you owe nothing. If they do - you can match your bank/credit card/insurance records (those are kept for 7 years at least) and see what has been paid already. Can a doctor's office do that? They can do whatever they want. The right question is whether a doctor's office is allowed to do that. Check your local laws, States regulate the medical profession. Is there a statute of limitation (I'm just guessing) that forces them to notify me in a certain time frame? Statute of limitations limits their ability to sue you successfully. They can always sue you, but if the statute of limitations has passed, the court will throw the suite away (provided you bring this defense up on time of course). Without a judgement they cannot force you to pay them, they can only ask. Nicely, as the law quoted by MrChrister mandates. They can trash your credit report and send the bill to collections though, but if the statute of limitations has passed I doubt they'd do that. Especially if its their fault. I'm not a lawyer, and you should consult with a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction for definitive answers and legal advice.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "45f2d7b866471abc707589c4e09d5403",
"text": "Seems like the doctor's office is not very organized. Ask for a line itemized bill. You want the date and the specific service(s) performed on those dates. If the bill seems fair and correct, try to negotiate cash discount payment. Ask how much they would settle for if you paid cash. If it is higher than you were thinking, say you were not expecting this sudden bill and if they would accept $xxx. If they say yes, great. If not, try to compromise, pay the suggested offer, or not pay and hope they don't send it to collections.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "987eae0d63dd48045d0cd55b10e90597",
"text": "You're certainly still responsible to pay what you owe the company given that: 1. for whatever reason, the recipient never received the checks. and 2. the money was credited back to you, albeit in a less than timely manner. However, if you take the time to explain the situation to the business, and show them proof that you sent the payments I would guess they would probably be willing to work with you on removing any late fees you have been assessed or possibly setting up a payment plan. Also, if you have been charged any overdraft or minimum balance fees by your bank while they held your money for the payments that was eventually credited back to your account, you might be able to get them to refund those if you explain what has happened. This is really a perfect example though of why balancing your checking account is as important today as it ever was.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4251db43b6ff75fe8e9e9d67f04f380a",
"text": "Everything lies in In the end. How many days/weeks/months/years can you wait for your money back?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf48406e0cb79263a44382dd3c5badb0",
"text": "All three credit bureaus allow you to file a dispute online. Some allow you to upload documentation at the same time, others will ask you to mail it to them. Send them the letter you got from your bank, they will then return to the collection company. For $300.00 most likely they will not pursue it any further and the credit bureaus will delete the entry from your file. If the collection company want to make a case out of it they will have to view to cost of trying to get a Court Judgment against the value of the amount they are claiming. Almost certainly they will view at not cost effective and your credit rating will return to where it was prior to the negative impact",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "985c27490a1fc20d8f94bcadedf22034",
"text": "Unfortunately I've seen every single example you've provided from the health care providers perspective. Trust me, they aren't happy about the situation either - hence the reason they will demand up front payment from you based on who your insurance carrier is. I could name a few of the top brand name insurance companies in this country that do all of this to their clients. Medical billing is an incredibly over complicated beast. One that insurance companies have been doing everything they can to make worse over the years. The codes can change annually and there are MANY different codes which can cover the exact same situation. Sure the insurance company might cover gallstones, but if you happen to be pregnant, well, that may not covered even though the treatment is the exact same. What can you do? Consider locating a new insurance company. You do have options and don't have to go with the one your company uses. The downside is that this is going to take quite a bit of research on your part and it will end up costing you more money on your monthly premiums simply because your company won't be footing part of the bill. Talk to other co-workers and see if their experiences match yours. If so, try to get a large enough group together to approach management and demand resolution. A third potential avenue is to get politically involved - but I'm enough of a pessimist that I doubt that would do any good. From what I've seen, neither major political party's current position actually does anything to solve the problem. A fourth option is suing the insurance company - but that is going to be incredibly expensive and take forever. You might have better luck getting together with a bunch of local people and demand your attorney general review the billing/payment practices. Again, this is going to require a LOT of effort. A fifth option is to attempt to cash pay your bills and submit them yourself to the insurance company for reimbursement. If you do this you can likely negotiate lower bills with the medical provider. For anything less than about $2,000 I negotiate the amount prior to service. Believe me when I say that providers are more than happy to give decent discounts if they know they won't have to deal with the insurance companies themselves. Slightly more work for you, but could be far cheaper in the long run.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fe8ad531b8303ea06ea6b21256025fe",
"text": "I don't believe Saturday is a business day either. When I deposit a check at a bank's drive-in after 4pm Friday, the receipt tells me it will credit as if I deposited on Monday. If a business' computer doesn't adjust their billing to have a weekday due date, they are supposed to accept the payment on the next business day, else, as you discovered, a Sunday due date is really the prior Friday. In which case they may be running afoul of the rules that require X number of days from the time they mail a bill to the time it's due. The flip side to all of this, is to pick and choose your battles in life. Just pay the bill 2 days early. The interest on a few hundred dollars is a few cents per week. You save that by not using a stamp, just charge it on their site on the Friday. Keep in mind, you can be right, but their computer still dings you. So you call and spend your valuable time when ever the due date is over a weekend, getting an agent to reverse the late fee. The cost of 'right' is wasting ten minutes, which is worth far more than just avoiding the issue altogether. But - if you are in the US (you didn't give your country), we have regulations for everything. HR 627, aka The CARD act of 2009, offers - ‘‘(2) WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY DUE DATES.—If the payment due date for a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan is a day on which the creditor does not receive or accept payments by mail (including weekends and holidays), the creditor may not treat a payment received on the next business day as late for any purpose.’’. So, if you really want to pursue this, you have the power of our illustrious congress on your side.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c09c6c548e583d6ef140969061e5176f",
"text": "As per the SIPC website: Most customers can expect to receive their property in one to three months. When the records of the brokerage firm are accurate, deliveries of some securities and cash to customers may begin shortly after the trustee receives the completed claim forms from customers, or even earlier if the trustee can transfer customer accounts to another broker-dealer. Delays of several months usually arise when the failed brokerage firm’s records are not accurate. It also is not uncommon for delays to take place when the troubled brokerage firm or its principals were involved in fraud. Source link: http://www.sipc.org/Who/SIPCQuestions/SIPCQuestion3.aspx",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4e009c73344d99ad5fc4c8dfe63a334",
"text": "\"I would start with actually talking to the collection agency. Say what you are saying here, namely: \"\"I'm willing to pay the debt if the creditor can prove to me that I owe them\"\". You can also talk to the health facility, ask them for information or records. You can start there and see what happens. Once you are ready to pay the debt you can negotiate to have the negative mark removed from your report. It really depends on the collection agency. They could be reasonable, or the could be total scum.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b13b0be848881f207f07f18d7f4d49e1",
"text": "Your credit card company will send you funds, probably a paper check, if you have a negative balance. So this situation will not last long. I'd guess 3-6 months at most, depending on the company's procedures.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9683095ddab1e14148cdb3672a3ab112",
"text": "You should start by calling the clinic and asking them to tell you how the visit was coded. Some clinics have different billing codes based on the complexity of the visit. If you have one thing you are seeing the doctor about, that could be coded differently than if you have 4 things you are seeing the doctor about. In fact, even if you are there just for one ailment, but while you are there you happen to ask a few quick questions about other possible ailments, the doctor could decide to use the billing code for the higher complexity. If when speaking to the billing department it is determined that the visit is using a higher complexity billing code (and a higher charge as a result), you could then request that it be re-coded with the lower complexity visit. Realize if you request that they will probably have to first get approval from the doctor that saw you. Note: I am basing this answer on first hand experience about 6 months ago in Illinois, where the situation I described happened to me because I asked some unrelated questions about other possible ailments at the end of a visit to an after hours clinic. The billing department explained that my visit was coded for 4 issues. (3 of them were quick questions I asked about at the end of the visit, one of which she referred me to another doctor. My additional questions probably extended the visit by 3-4 minutes.) In my case I never got the bill reduced, mainly due to my own laziness and my knowing that I would hit my deductible anyway this year. Of course I can't say for sure if this is what happened in your case, or even if this practice is widespread. This was the first and only time in my life that I encountered it. As a side note, your primary doctor would likely rarely ever bill you for a more complex visit, as it likely wouldn't lead to much repeat business. As for your last question regarding your credit: if the provider decides to lower the price, and you pay the lower price, this in no way can affect your credit. Surprising Update: When I called the billing office months ago, I had asked if they could confirm the code with the doctor, and I was told they would look into it. I never heard back, never followed up, and assumed that was the end of it. Well, today I got a call back (months later) and was informed that they had re-coded the visit which will result in a lower charge! It's still pending the insurance adjustment but at some point in the future I expect to receive either a credit on my next statement or a check in the mail. (The price difference pre-insurance in my case has gone from $359 to $235.) Update: I did receive a check for the difference. The check was dated July 20, 2016, which is just over 2 months after the phone call informing me I would receive it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7bbea649c7e431c0f3ff01003b0df303",
"text": "You have not specified what country you are in. That radically changes everything. In case you are in Canada, there's a great blog that covers bankruptcy and student loans, at http://student-loan-bankruptcy.ca/. Fundamentally, in order to discharge government-backed student loans, you must have ceased to be a student for at least seven years prior to filing. Even then, though, the government can object, in which case you will still have to repay some or all of the loan. More generally, given that the collection agency appears to be operating in bad faith, you'll want to ensure that they send you written documentation of any offer they are extending you. If they refuse to do this, you should assume that they aren't actually offering you anything at all and you will have to pay back the full amount plus interest and penalties. Note that, in many countries, if you settle the debt (that is, pay anything less than the full amount plus interest and penalties), this will be a black mark on your credit report. In this case, if you repaid the full $16,000 and they forgave the extra $4,000, they would most likely still add a note to your credit report indicating that you did not pay the full amount that you owed, and this will negatively impact your credit rating even beyond your late payments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c4d5b36c6388949ec974c465ff19a204",
"text": "Seems like the straightforward answer is to call the provider and ask. They should be able to tell you if you owe them or not. Unfortunately, with small providers there is always a chance they won't get even that right; I would confirm exactly why they think you don't owe them anything if in fact you don't. Medical providers can go after you for years later, depending on your state; so don't assume just because it's been months that they won't eventually. Smaller providers aren't terribly organized, but they do usually eventually go after most of those who owe them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f7d4f142cf332be743cc17958f4cef28",
"text": "Sometimes I think a question like this is one of moral versus legal. The reality is that you know you owe the money because you received the services. You're right that the bill should have been sent to you, and the natural urge for many people is to just count it in the win column when things like this happen and there's the chance to avoid paying. I suppose my question for you is, are you comfortable with the notion that you are not paying something that your heart of hearts tells you should be paid? If roles were reversed and you, as a business owner, had forgotten to bill something for which you were rightfully due payment, wouldn't you hope they'd have the integrity to pay you anyway? The legal side of this can be a bit trickier, and much depends on the state you're in (assuming you're in the U.S.) because some have stiffer consumer collection and protection laws than others. The rehab center could, when doing an audit of its accounts, discover that you didn't pay for these. They could take the polite course of action and call you with a gentle reminder or send a bill, or they could be not so nice about it. Either way, they can't send anything to collections for which you haven't been presented a bill and demonstrated an unwillingness to pay. There's a process in place, regardless of the state, so they can't just automatically put it into collections. I will close with this question for you: did the rehab center help you with what you needed, and are you healthier and better because of their care? If so, pay the bill. That's my advice. Keep in mind that unpaid medical costs just raise the prices for everyone else, because these providers will make up for the loss somewhere. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e18a3c6cbff373b8ab0f583250150a6",
"text": "A friend of mine has two credit cards. He has specifically arranged with the card issuers so that the billing cycles are 15 days out of sync. He uses whichever card has more recently ended its billing cycle, which gives him the longest possible time between purchase and the due date to avoid interest.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bc143d63cb8050b104d6cce96934297c",
"text": "\"In addition to the good answers already provided, I want to point out that many (most?) providers will handle filing your health insurance claim for you even though it's really your responsibility. So here's how medical bills \"\"you don't have to pay\"\" might come about: * It's possible that your balance is $4, or $20, or $65, or even still $100 depending on your particular insurance plan. Whatever is left at this step is what you pay.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af1106a29d58d5538e4e2baea1dc30ea",
"text": "The insurance company issued the check. I'd contact the insurance company to have the current check voided and a new one issued to the pharmacy.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c21e6b33e344cde621f9eea0c8521379
|
Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?
|
[
{
"docid": "9194142cb6b4c2f6092eb59362dd0019",
"text": "\"Here are my reasons as to why bonds are considered to be a reasonable investment. While it is true that, on average over a sufficiently long period of time, stocks do have a high expected return, it is important to realize that bonds are a different type of financial instrument that stocks, and have features that are attractive to certain types of investors. The purpose of buying bonds is to convert a lump sum of currency into a series of future cash flows. This is in and of itself valuable to the issuer because they would prefer to have the lump sum today, rather than at some point in the future. So we generally don't say that we've \"\"lost\"\" the money, we say that we are purchasing a series of future payments, and we would only do this if it were more valuable to us than having the money in hand. Unlike stocks, where you are compensated with dividends and equity to take on the risks and rewards of ownership, and unlike a savings account (which is much different that a bond), where you are only being paid interest for the time value of your money while the bank lends it out at their risk, when you buy a bond you are putting your money at risk in order to provide financing to the issuer. It is also important to realize that there is a much higher risk that stocks will lose value, and you have to compare the risk-adjusted return, and not the nominal return, for stocks to the risk-adjusted return for bonds, since with investment-grade bonds there is generally a very low risk of default. While the returns being offered may not seem attractive to you individually, it is not reasonable to say that the returns offered by the issuer are insufficient in general, because both when the bonds are issued and then subsequently traded on a secondary market (which is done fairly easily), they function as a market. That is to say that sellers always want a higher price (resulting in a lower return), and buyers always want to receive a higher return (requiring a lower price). So while some sellers and buyers will be able to agree on a mutually acceptable price (such that a transaction occurs), there will almost always be some buyers and sellers who also do not enter into transactions because they are demanding a lower/higher price. The fact that a market exists indicates that enough investors are willing to accept the returns that are being offered by sellers. Bonds can be helpful in that as a class of assets, they are less risky than stocks. Additionally, bonds are paid back to investors ahead of equity, so in the case of a failing company or public entity, bondholders may be paid even if stockholders lose all their money. As a result, bonds can be a preferred way to make money on a company or government entity that is able to pay its bills, but has trouble generating any profits. Some investors have specific reasons why they may prefer a lower risk over time to maximizing their returns. For example, a government or pension fund or a university may be aware of financial payments that they will be required to make in a particular year in the future, and may purchase bonds that mature in that year. They may not be willing to take the risk that in that year, the stock market will fall, which could force them to reduce their principal to make the payments. Other individual investors may be close to a significant life event that can be predicted, such as college or retirement, and may not want to take on the risk of stocks. In the case of very large investors such as national governments, they are often looking for capital preservation to hedge against inflation and forex risk, rather than to \"\"make money\"\". Additionally, it is important to remember that until relatively recently in the developed world, and still to this day in many developing countries, people have been willing to pay banks and financial institutions to hold their money, and in the context of the global bond market, there are many people around the world who are willing to buy bonds and receive a very low rate of return on T-Bills, for example, because they are considered a very safe investment due to the creditworthiness of the USA, as well as the stability of the dollar, especially if inflation is very high in the investor's home country. For example, I once lived in an African country where inflation was 60-80% per year. This means if I had $100 today, I could buy $100 worth of goods, but by next year, I might need $160 to buy the same goods I could buy for $100 today. So you can see why simply being able to preserve the value of my money in a bond denominated in USA currency would be valuable in that case, because the alternative is so bad. So not all bondholders want to be owners or make as much money as possible, some just want a safe place to put their money. Also, it is true for both stocks and bonds that you are trading a lump sum of money today for payments over time, although for stocks this is a different kind of payment (dividends), and you only get paid if the company makes money. This is not specific to bonds. In most other cases when a stock price appreciates, this is to reflect new information not previously known, or earnings retained by the company rather than paid out as dividends. Most of the financial instruments where you can \"\"make\"\" money immediately are speculative, where two people are betting against each other, and one has to lose money for the other to make money. Again, it's not reasonable to say that any type of financial instrument is the \"\"worst\"\". They function differently, serve different purposes, and have different features that may or may not fit your needs and preferences. You seem to be saying that you simply don't find bond returns high enough to be attractive to you. That may be true, since different people have different investment objectives, risk tolerance, and preference for having money now versus more money later. However, some of your statements don't seem to be supported by facts. For example, retail banks are not highly profitable as an industry, so they are not making thousands of times what they are paying you. They also need to pay all of their operating expenses, as well as account for default risk and inflation, out of the different between what they lend and what they pay to savings account holders. Also, it's not reasonable to say that bonds are worthless, as I've explained. The world disagrees with you. If they agreed with you, they would stop buying bonds, and the people who need financing would have to lower bond prices until people became interested again. That is part of how markets work. In fact, much of the reason that bond yields are so low right now is that there has been such high global demand for safe investments like bonds, especially from other nations, such that bond issues (especially the US government) have not needed to pay high yields in order to raise money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fdaf53ad403f045172b9a761632d82dd",
"text": "\"You ask a question, \"\"Is there any real purpose in purchasing bonds?\"\" and then appear to go off on a rant. Before the question is closed by members here, let me offer this: This chart reflects the 10 year bond rate. From 1960-2004 (give or take) the coupon rate was over 4%. Asset allocation suggests a mix of stocks and bonds seeking to avoid the risk of having \"\"all of one's eggs in one basket.\"\" To that end, the simplest approach is a stock/bond mix. Over time, a 70/30 mix provides nearly 95% of the long tern return, but with a much lower volatility. I'm not going to suggest that a 2% 10 year bond is an exciting investment, but bonds may have a place in one's portfolio. I'm not going to debate each and every point you attempted, but #5 is especially questionable. If you feel this is true, you should short bonds. Or you should at least 99% of the time. Do you have data to back up this statement?\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "efafef52a164dc64b4961b50003b6953",
"text": "Bitcoin isn't exactly backed by any substantial economic factors, like a good, skill, etc., and people are less familiar with it than a bond. The idea of currency existing as debt has been with humankind for thousands of years, and we've just forgotten, so I thought using the bond equivalent wold refresh that thought in peoples minds, and begin a period of rethinking our culture on social and economic terms.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a292093e9a0f0ce7871e0b2312b7f0f8",
"text": "I've recently started studying a bit of finance (I am a software developer) and have a question regarding the Bank of England (BoE) announcement. The BoE agreed in maintaining its current interest rate (0.25% I think), although it announced it would be buying GILT (Government Bonds), wouldn't the purchase of bonds by a central bank make the interest rate move down? Isn't the goal of a central bank purchasing bonds, to move the interest rate? Is there a difference between adding liquidity to the market (increasing money supply) and changing the interest rate? Can these two things be separated? Thank you :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ec3ac54366f8034c62e3e58a52a015",
"text": "Running a fiscal deficit means a government is spending more money than it is taking in as taxes, fees, penalties, fines, etc, with the extra money that is being spent being borrowed by selling bonds to willing buyers. Interest paid to said buyers is another government expense in future years, and of course, the bonds must ultimately be redeemed and the buyers paid off. The buyers of the bonds must have some confidence that they will get the interest they have been promised as well as be paid off ultimately. As the government's indebtedness increases, buyers are likely to demand higher interest rates as inducements to buy the bonds. And so it goes...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c3f5aa8893ae0fea90232779fcb22b47",
"text": "Yes, if you want income and are willing to commit to hold a bond to maturity, you can hold the bond, get the scheduled payments, and get your principal returned at the end. US Savings Bonds are non-marketable (you cannot trade them, but can redeem early) bonds designed for this purpose. The value of a marketable bond will vary over its lifetime as interest rates change and the bond matures. If you buy a 30 year US Treasury bond at par value (100) on September 1, 2011, it yielded 3.51%. If rates fall, the value of your bond will increase over 100. If rates rise, the value will decrease below 100. How much the value changes depends on the type of bond and the demand for it. But if your goal is to buy and hold, you don't need to worry about it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "14cee9078b37b49a75d3694d935e28bd",
"text": "And this is bad why? What is the total funding? What is the total return? Do you have the necessary facts to evaluate this? Basing opinions on partial evidence makes poor public policy. Most municipal bonds might actually work out for the better good of communities. Certainly the total amount of bonds listed as going bad in this story is a tiny, tiny fraction of total bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a",
"text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9029326b9e5b19d848a42a55f34439f4",
"text": "AAA bonds are safe, as far as the principal goes. If you buy long term bonds today (at very low rates) and the interest rate goes up to 10% in 5 years, the current value of the bonds will decrease. But if you hold the bonds till maturity, you will almost certainly (barring MBS scenarios) get the expected principal and interest on the bonds. If you decide to sell a long-term bond before it matures, it will probably be worth less than you paid for it if interest rates have risen since you bought it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e7a66aad95b9c6b7ab472878f1956f3d",
"text": "This is pretty basic question, but my head is confused :( If you buy a $1000 bond with 5% interest rate, so it would be $1050 at maturity what does it mean? * you will be paid the interest in coupons (paid in coupons until it totals $50) and at maturity paid $1000 (in one large single payment) * you get paid the full value in coupons ($1050 split by multiple coupons) Any other explanations of how a bond works are welcome, most of the stuff I could find was about what yield is, not how the bond actually works.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c96a10c6eee402bcb40dbc20e9facc5",
"text": "Unless stated otherwise, these terms apply to all bonds. The par value or face value of a bond refers to the value of the bond when it's redeemed at maturity. A bond with a par value of $10,000 simply means that if you purchase the bond and hold it until the maturity date specified in the contract, you receive $10,000. The purchase price, however, is exactly that: it's what you paid for the bond. Bonds may sell below, at, or above par. Continuing the example from above, if you paid $9,800 for a bought a bond with a $10,000 par value, you bought the bond below par. A bond selling below par is said to be selling at a discount. For bonds selling above bar, they're selling at a premium. If the purchase price and the par value are the same, the bond is selling at par. These terms apply to callable bonds only, which are bond contracts that allow the issuer of the bond (in the case of municipal bonds, the institution or agency who created the contract) to buy back from bond holders at a given date (the call date) and at a given price (the call price) before the bond reaches maturity and pays the holder the full par value. Yes, the coupon rate is essentially the interest paid. It's usually represented as a percent of the par value, so if the $10,000 in the example above had a 5% coupon rate, this means that it paid out 0.05 * 10,000 = $500 each year. Usually, this payment is made as two semi-annual payments of $250. Some bonds are zero-coupon bonds, which means exactly what you would think; they don't make any coupon payments. U.S. Treasury Bills are one example of a zero-coupon bond. All of these factors are linked, because the coupon rate, callable provisions, and par value, along with the overall economic environment, can affect the purchase price of a bond.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e1153acc2c4b339189bdcf1f88d1b7e5",
"text": "When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "845477d89e3c5ff7b89554405e5d8b21",
"text": "\"I don't like buying individual bonds for my own portfolio. I actually used to buy long-term government strip bonds (Canadas or provincial bonds) but I stopped. Here are some reasons why: My broker allows me to purchase bonds via their web application. However, to sell a bond, I had to call in to the fixed-income trading desk. That was inconvenient. (But your broker may be different.) Bonds don't typically trade on a formal exchange. So, there's no cheap & easy way (as far as I know) to get an independent quote for a bond's value – I had to trust what my broker said my bond was worth when assessing my portfolio performance. I asked my broker once how they arrive at the \"\"market value\"\" shown – i.e. whether it was last bid, ask, or actual trade – and I was told they use a third party bond quotation / valuation information provider for the data, and that quotes are an estimate of what the bond would be worth, based on similar bonds. I quickly learned that wasn't the value I could actually get when selling it: When you're dealing with your broker to buy and sell bonds, you're likely dealing with theirs or a related investment bank which makes a market for specific issues of bonds. While I wasn't being charged an explicit commission to buy or sell bonds, it was evident the broker makes money off the spread: That is, the difference between what they would be willing to sell a bond for and what they would be willing to buy that same bond for. They will buy your bond back from you cheaper than what they could turn around and sell it to somebody else for. That's why they don't charge an explicit commission... it's built in and hidden! Anyway, when I finally discovered my broker would seldom actually offer me the \"\"market value\"\" quoted for my bonds (typically, it would be bought back for a few percent less than it were theoretically worth), I gave up. I don't think bonds simply are liquid enough, nor the costs transparent enough for retail investors. (Or maybe it's just me :-) However, I do think bonds remain an important part of a diversified portfolio: Bonds ought to be represented in a diversified portfolio using low-cost bond index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. Since these funds buy & sell bonds in large quantities, they get a better deal on the spreads. So, while you do pay an explicit management fee for a fund, you are probably saving since you're not getting shafted on the spreads.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1cf9c7613a8b1d0fd44de8be4f8b61b0",
"text": "Keep in mind there are a couple of points to ponder here: Rates are really low. With rates being so low, unless there is deflation, it is pretty easy to see even moderate inflation of 1-2% being enough to eat the yield completely which would be why the returns are negative. Inflation is still relatively contained. With inflation low, there is no reason for the central banks to raise rates which would give new bonds a better rate. Thus, this changes in CPI are still in the range where central banks want to be stimulative with their policy which means rates are low which if lower than inflation rates would give a negative real return which would be seen as a way to trigger more spending since putting the money into treasury debt will lose money to inflation in terms of purchasing power. A good question to ponder is has this happened before in the history of the world and what could we learn from that point in time. The idea for investors would be to find alternative holdings for their cash and bonds if they want to beat inflation though there are some inflation-indexed bonds that aren't likely appearing in the chart that could also be something to add to the picture here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "020d22d766952e6008bf848df7c060d2",
"text": "\"I'll answer your question, but first a comment about your intended strategy. Buying government bonds in a retirement account is probably not a good idea. Government bonds (generally) are tax advantaged themselves, so they offer a lower interest rate than other types of bonds. At no tax or reduced tax, many people will accept the lower interest rate because their effective return may be similar or better depending, for example, on their own marginal tax rate. In a tax-advantaged retirement account, however, you'll be getting the lower interest without any additional benefit because that account itself is already tax-advantaged. (Buying bonds generally may be a good idea or not - I won't comment on that - but choose a different category of bonds.) For the general question about the relationship between the Fed rate and the bond rate, they are positively correlated. There's not direct causal relationship in the sense that the Fed is not setting the bond rate directly, but other interest bearing investment options are tied to the Fed rate and many of those interest-bearing options compete for the same investor dollars as the bonds that you're reviewing. That's at a whole market level. Individual bonds, however, may not be so tightly coupled since the creditworthiness of the issuing entity matters a lot too, so it could be that \"\"bond rates\"\" generally are going up but some specific bonds are going down based on something happening with the issuer, just like the stock market might be generally going up even as specific stocks are dropping. Also keep in mind that many bonds trade as securities on a secondary market much like stocks. So I've talked about the bond rate. The price of the bonds themselves on the secondary market generally move opposite to the rate. The reason is that, for example, if you buy a bond at less than face value, you're getting an effective interest rate that's higher because you get the same sized incremental payments of interest but put less money into the investment. And vice versa.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f0cc6bb61f9c5b56558eef57ce1ed1a",
"text": "\"You ask two questions - First - the market value can drop for two reasons (that I know), the company itself may have issues, and investors don't trust they'll be paid, or a general rise in interest rates. In the latter case, there's little to worry about, but for the former, well, that's your decision, you say \"\"the company is in trouble\"\" yet you believe they'll pay. Tough call. Second - yes, when a bond matures, the money appears in your account.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1ec0ea7df028b05d375bd3ee26928e6",
"text": "Most reflationary policies are talking about stopping, so hopefully in 2018 the CBs will stopping buying so much. BOJ is rethinking their policy of buying treasuries when our US yields start to rise (to shrink them and protect their currency). So hopefully once we get past global QE, things can get back to a more “normal” status. As far as advice on finding value...err...good luck? [Growth of Monetary Base and M2 chart in article](https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4113280-federal-reserve-never-printed-money-part) Also look at how the money multiplier is shrinking.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c2a52335b8b2d21ee1544b5af96aa954
|
Need exit strategy for aging mother who owns aging rental properties, please
|
[
{
"docid": "31885151bf8a8078618149c4d54eb664",
"text": "\"I debated whether to put this in an answer or a comment, because I'm not sure that this can be answered usefully without a lot more information, which actually would then probably make it a candidate for closing as \"\"too localized\"\". At the very least we would need to know where (which jurisdiction) she is located in. So, speaking in a generic way, the options available as I see them are: Contact the mortgage companies and explain she can't continue to make payments. They will likely foreclose on the properties and if she still ends up owing money after that (if you are in the US this also depends on whether you are in a \"\"non-recourse\"\" state) then she could be declared bankrupt. This is rather the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and definitely not something to be undertaken lightly, but would at least wipe the slate clean and give her some degree of certainty about her situation. Look very carefully at the portfolio of properties and get some proper valuations done on them (depending on where she is located this may be free). Also do a careful analysis of the property sales and rental markets, to see whether property prices / rental rates are going up or down. Then decide on an individual basis whether each property is better kept or sold. You may be able to get discounts on fees if you sell multiple properties in one transaction. This option would require some cold hard analysis and decision making without letting yourselves get emotionally invested in the situation (difficult, I know). Depending on how long she has had the properties for and how she came to own them, it MIGHT be an option to pursue action against whoever advised her to acquire them. Clearly a large portfolio of decaying rental properties is not a suitable investment for a relatively elderly lady and if she only came by them relatively recently, on advice from an investment consultant or similar, you might have some redress there. Another option: could she live in one of the properties herself to reduce costs? If she owns her own home as well then she could sell that, live in the one of the rentals and use the money saved to finance the sale of the other rentals. Aside from these thoughts, one final piece of advice: don't get your own finances tangled up in hers (so don't take out a mortgage against your own property, for example). Obviously if you have the leeway to help her out of your budget then that is great, but I would restrict that to doing things like paying for grocery shopping or whatever. If she is heading for bankruptcy or other financial difficulties, it won't help if you are entangled too.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "6950d92f340ffdb328d15afac8299aba",
"text": "BLUF: Continue renting, and work toward financial independence, you can always buy later if your situation changes. Owning the house you live in can be a poor investment. It is totally dependent on the housing market where you live. Do the math. The rumors may have depressed the market to the point where the houses are cheaper to buy. When you do the estimate, don't forget any homeowners association fees and periodic replacement of the roof, HVAC system and fencing, and money for repairs of plumbing and electrical systems. Calculate all the replacements as cost over the average lifespan of each system. And the repairs as an average yearly cost. Additionally, consider that remodeling will be needful every 20 years or so. There are also intangibles between owning and renting that can tip the scales no matter what the numbers alone say. Ownership comes with significant opportunity and maintenance costs and is by definition not liquid, but provides stability. As long as you make your payments, and the government doesn't use imminent domain, you cannot be forced to move. Renting gives you freedom from paying for maintenance and repairs on the house and the freedom to move with only a lease to break.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0841a009c04fa1192c31304d59282b12",
"text": "I'm afraid your best recourse may be legal. I don't know that internet is a necessity, but the court would frown upon anyone paying $4K for rent but not being able to afford to heat the water or turn the lights on. $48K a year net should be enough for her to at least keep the kids with these things. I don't know that you can educate her. Her issue is very deep-seated and far beyond a good financial planning type session.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f8bbe2d727be025e04e2f370bc0c887",
"text": "\"If you're losing money or breaking even, you own a bad investment. The problem you have is that you are emotionally invested in your tenant. That isn't a bad thing in general but it's costing you money and, unless interest rates fall enough to justify a refi or property taxes go down in your area, that's kind of unlikely to change. Option #1 - Tell your wife that you are willing to accept a loss up to a certain level because of your long term relationship with your tenant. In a perfect world, the two of you would then discuss what the \"\"magic number\"\" would be where you got out and come to a compromise. For example, if you are comfortable losing up to $3,000 per year and she is unhappy with any loss, you may agree on selling the house when your losses climb to $1,500. In a less perfect world, it would cause an argument as she has already told you what she wants you to do. Option #2 - Raise the rent to the break even point. From what you've said, this will likely result in the loss of your tenant but you could then rent to someone else for significantly more. Option #3 - Sell the house. It's an investment property which means it's supposed to make money for you. It can do that very quickly by way of a sale and then it's no longer your problem. Option #4 - Sell the house to your tenant. You bought it for $50,000 and it's currently worth $150,000 (roughly). The problem you face is that property taxes have gone up and caused your mortgage to increase past your tenants ability to pay. My guess is, after 15 years, your payoff is somewhere in the high $20's to mid 30's assuming you got a 30 year loan and haven't refinanced. If you sell to her for say $75,000 (or even up to $90,000) you will still make a profit (wife is happy), she will get a mortgage she can afford and be able to stay in the house (you and the tenant are happy). Added bonus is that her property taxes would be lower (assuming a different rate for investment property in your area). I would discuss this at length with your wife as well before making such an offer. Option #5 - Get a property management company. As mentioned above, they will keep a percentage but will remove your emotions from the equation altogether and turn the situation into a winner. I don't know if your wife is right in saying you don't have the stomach for this, but I do think your heart is getting in the way in this particular situation. I get the feeling that if your tenant was 25 years old and had only been renting from you since last October, you would have no problem raising the rent to market levels at every renewal.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ba0fe96cd66931d79d5747d12ed72b",
"text": "If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df4449c7883b32e00a325fda321ca845",
"text": "Obviously the best way to consolidate the real-estate loans is with a real-estate loan. Mortgages, being secured loans, provide much better interest rates. Also, interest can be deducted to some extent (depending on how the proceeds are used, but up to $100K of the mortgage can have deductible interest just for using the primary residence as a collateral). Last but not least, in many states mortgages on primary residence are non-recourse (again, may depend on the money use). That may prove useful if in the future your mother runs into troubles repaying it. So yes, your instincts are correct. How to convince your mother - that's between you and her.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a9e31264f9315abe930f2a44710544f2",
"text": "\"There are a few of ways to do this: Ask the seller if they will hold a Vendor Take-Back Mortgage or VTB. They essentially hold a second mortgage on the property for a shorter amortization (1 - 5 years) with a higher interest rate than the bank-held mortgage. The upside for the seller is he makes a little money on the second mortgage. The downsides for the seller are that he doesn't get the entire purchase price of the property up-front, and that if the buyer goes bankrupt, the vendor will be second in line behind the bank to get any money from the property when it's sold for amounts owing. Look for a seller that is willing to put together a lease-to-own deal. The buyer and seller agree to a purchase price set 5 years in the future. A monthly rent is calculated such that paying it for 5 years equals a 20% down payment. At the 5 year mark you decide if you want to buy or not. If you do not, the deal is nulled. If you do, the rent you paid is counted as the down payment for the property and the sale moves forward. Find a private lender for the down payment. This is known as a \"\"hard money\"\" lender for a reason: they know you can't get it anywhere else. Expect to pay higher rates than a VTB. Ask your mortgage broker and your real estate agent about these options.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f3153f161517c291ba3f59b50c82f271",
"text": "If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b7004ec040ee8fba64f99d4f90af7cf",
"text": "\"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on \"\"find property management company Philadelphia\"\" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two). If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income. She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure. A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation. It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer. Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive. You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It's currently winter. Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing. If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes. Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first). Note that the kind of heat matters. You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd333f8f311aa1f844a430926d5d8df7",
"text": "Firstly, I'm going to do what you said and analyze your question taking your entire family's finances into account. That means giving you an answer that maximizes your family's total wealth rather then just your own. If instead of that your question really was, should I let my parents buy me a house and live rent free, then obviously you should do that (assuming your parents can afford it and you aren't taking advantage people who need to be saving for retirement and not wasting it on a 25 y/o who should be able to support him / herself). This is really an easy question assuming you are willing to listen to math. Goto the new york times rent vs buy calculator and plug in the numbers: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html Firstly, if you do what you say you want to do buy the house all cash and live there for 4 years, it would be the equivalent of paying 1151 / month in rent once you factor in transaction costs, taxes, opportunity costs, etc. Take a look at the calculator, it's very detailed. This is why you should never buy houses all cash (unless its a negotiating tactic in a hot market, and even then you should refi after). Mortgage rates are super low right now, all that money sitting in the house is appreciating at maybe the rate of inflation (assuming the house value isn't going down which it can very easily do if you don't maintain it, another cost you need to factor in). Instead, you could be invested in the stock market getting 8%, the lost opportunity cost there is huge. I'm not even considering your suggestion that you hang onto the house after you move out in 4 years. That's a terrible idea. Investment properties should be at a maximum value of 10x the yearly rent. I wouldn't pay more then 72K for a house / apartment that rents for only 600 / month (and even then I would look for a better deal, which you can find if you time things right). Don't believe me? Just do the numbers. Renting your 200K house for 600 / month is 7200 / year. Figure you'll need to spend 1% / year (I'm being optimistic here) on maintanence / vacancy (and I'm not even considering your time dealing with tenants). Plus another 1% or so on property tax. That's 4K / year, so your total profit is 3200 which is a return of only 1.6% on your 200K. You can get 1% in an ally savings account for comparison. Really you are much better off investing in a diversified portfolio. You only need 6 months living expenses in cash, so unless your family is ridicuouly wealthy (In which case you should be asking your financial planner what to do and not stack exchange), I have no idea why your parents have 200K sitting around in a savings account earning 0. Open a vanguard account for them and put that money in VTI and your family will be much better off 5 years from now then if you buy that money pit (err house). If risk is a concern, diversify more. I have some money invested with a robo advisor. They do charge a small fee, but it's set it and forget it with auto diversification and tax loss harvesting. Bottom line is, get that money invested in something, having it sitting in a bank account earning 0 is probably the second worst thing you could do with next to buying this house.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f844bc2e005a7a9e65887aa5f7ce63e9",
"text": "I think what you have here is actually TWO agreements with your sister, and explicitly splitting it into two agreements will bring some clarity. The first is ownership of and responsibility for the building. The second is each of your personal use of a unit. Here's what you do: Treat ownership as if you're not living there. Split the down payment, the monthly mortgage, taxes and insurance, responsibility for cost of maintenance, etc. as well as the ownership and benefit of the building 70%/30%. Put all that in a contract. Treat it like a business. Second, lease those units to yourselves as if you were tenants. And yes, I means even with leases. This clarifies your responsibilities in a tenant capacity. More to the point, each of you pays rent at the going rate for the unit you occupy. If rent from all three units equals the monthly expenses, nothing more needs to be done. If they're more than the monthly expenses, then each of you receives that as business income on that 70%/30% breakdown. If those three rents are less than the monthly expenses, then each of you are required to make up the difference, again at 70%/30%. Note: if any of those expenses are utilities, then they should be apportioned via the rent -- just as you would if you'd rented out the whole building to strangers. 2nd note: all that can be done with ledger entries, rather than moving money around, first as rent, then as expense payments, then as payouts. But, I think it will benefit all of you to explicitly pay rent at first, to really clarify your dual relationship as joint owners and as tenants. Final note: I think this is a stickier situation than you may think it is. Familial relationships have been destroyed both by going into business together, and by renting to family members. You're doing both, and mixing the two to boot. I'm not saying it will destroy your relationship, but that there's a solid risk there. Relationship destruction comes from assumptions and vague verbal agreements. Therefor, for the sake of all of you, put everything in writing. A clear contract for the business side, and clear leases for the tenant side. It's not about trust -- it's about understood communication and positive agreement on all important points.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "87330ef3eafc6becc1f1896d8c1fb54e",
"text": "You can't calculate how many houses it will take. To do so you would have to know how much you can charge in rent compared to how much is costs to run that particular location. If the desirability of that location changes, so does the ability to rent the place, and so does the amount you can charge. It is possible to create a business in real estate that would allow you to generate retirement income. But you would be focusing all your income in your retirement years on one segment of the entire investment universe. The diversification would have to come from spreading the money through different types of real estate: condo, apartments, houses, commercial, warehouse, light industrial. You would even have to decide whether you want them all in one micro-market, or spread throughout a larger market, or an even wider area diversification. As your empire grew and you approached retirement age you would have to decide if you wanted to liquidate your investments to minimize risk. The long leases that provides stability of income would make it hard to sell quickly if the market in one area started to weaken.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "77dcc778863aba98f8b6cece6db553d4",
"text": "Your mother has a problem that is typical for a woman with children. She is trying to help her children have a good life, by sacrificing to get them to a point where they can live comfortably on their own. Though she has a difficult situation now, much of the problems come from a very few choices by her and her children, and her situation can be fixed. Let me point out a few of the reasons why she has come to this point: My mother is a single mom... she is turning 50 this summer... she has about $60k in school loans from the college I attended... she has payments of $500/month ($10k) to my sisters college... she lives on her own in a 2 bedroom apartment... Mother's current 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $3131, 71%, too high, goal $2200) Lifestyle (total $150, low, she should have $500-900 to live her life) Financial (total $1350, 31%) Some observations and suggestions: Even though the $1625 rents seems high, your mom might enjoy her apartment and consider part of her rent ($300) a lifestyle choice (spending money for time), and the higher rent may make sense. But the rent is high for her income. Your mom should be spending more on food, and budget $200/month. Your mom should be saving money for investments and retirement. She should be putting 10% into savings ($440), plus any IRA/401K pretax savings. Your sister should be paying for her own college. She should take her own student loans, so that her mother can save for retirement. And since she only has $10K left, an alternative would be that you could loan her the money, and she could repay you when she graduates (you have money, as you loaned your mother $8K). You should be repaying the $500/month on the $60K student loan your mother took to help you get through college. You have benefited from the education, and the increased opportunity the college education has given you. Now is the time to accept responsibility and pay your debts. You could at least agree to split the expense with her, and were you paying even $300/month (leaving $200 for her), that would still fix her budget. Your mom should get a car that is paid for and reduce her transportation expenses, until the $350/month debt is resolved. She should resolve to spend no more than $300/month for a car, and with $100/month for insurance be under 10% for her vehicle. Since your mother lives in the US (NJ) she could avoid the $350/month debt payment though BK. But since there are other solutions she could exercise to resolve her problems, this is probably not needed. You mom could consider sharing her apartment to share expenses. Paying $1625 for an apartment for one person seems extravagant. She might enjoy sharing her apartment with a room-mate. That is about it. Once her children take responsibility for their lives, your mom will have a manageable budget, and less stress in her life. Mother's revised 'income statement', Income Essentials (total $2721, 62%, high, need to reduce by $500) Lifestyle (total $450, 10%, low) Financial (total $990, 23%) While you and your sister have these changes, Summary of changes: Some rent is lifestyle, reduced car loan by $200, sister pays her college $500, you pay your college $300, mom saves 10% of her income. Once your sister graduates and starts to repay you for your help with her college, you can take over paying the remainder of your loans, saving your mom an additional $200/month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c45066b63198035b22930c8c25a63c2",
"text": "Sit down with professional with knowledge about eldercare issues. Know how your options regarding the property ownership can impact the services they qualify for. Even making a change in ownership can impact their eligibility for certain programs. Some of which can reach back to events in the recent past. Also if you own it but she will get some of the profits when you sell, she could still be considered an owner, which can impact eligibility for programs. This is in addition to the issues with the lender, the IRS, and your estate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e3a37321270cf0bc94c808ddedb7135",
"text": "If your sister paid rent, she was a tenant. There are laws to protect tenants, but those depend on what country, state, and city you live in. In most places in the US (maybe all), she was owed more than 2 days notice. Normally, the local housing authority could help her figure out what her rights are, but since this already happened, they may not be able to do much (depends on the local laws). It's worth asking them anyway. I don't know how partial ownership of the property would affect things if your sister was a partial owner. If the 30 year old will was the most recent document, then that's how the estate will be distributed. There are no laws in the US requiring a will to be fair. An executor's role is to carry out the will. Being an executor does not mean one can choose to unilaterally sell the property in the estate without permission of other heirs. You'll need to speak with a lawyer if you think they're breaking the will by selling property that you have partial ownership of. But since the sale is already done, reversing it would be slow and probably very expensive in legal fees. If it's a small estate, you'll have to judge whether a lawyer is worth the money and the family's animosity. Also, if the estate had debt, debt must be paid before property is distributed to the heirs, so that could also change what your sisters had to do. I'd suggest first asking your sisters to tell you about what they've done to execute the will, and what they do in the future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "233b7834ac5a15ab9d4b9fb522d80bd0",
"text": "He doesn't have to follow through on this, but he could tell this sister that he will stop making mortgage payments, which will result in foreclosure and sale at lower price than might be realized by a voluntary sale. Translation: the house will sold, sis. Do you want to maximize your share of the proceeds? And, as I said in a comment above: I hope that he is keeping careful records of mortgage an utility payments, as he might (should) be entitled to a refund from the proceeds of an eventual sale (possibly adjusted by the fair rent value of the time which he spent living there)",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
819bcbacfbb3e06b8e1e4d2d68d83b78
|
Does home equity grow with the investment put into the house?
|
[
{
"docid": "deb953fcf7100653cf7a8ae876250bf7",
"text": "The bank I work with would be more inclined to expand an existing HELOC rather than write a new one. I think that would be your best bet if you decide to continue borrowing against your home. Consider that your own income would have to support the repayment of these larger homes. If it is, why didn't you buy a larger home to begin with? As far as increasing the appraisal, you don't usually get one dollar of increased appraisal for each dollar you spend on improvements unless you have a rundown house in a nice neighborhood; part of the appraisal comes from a comparison with the appraisals of the other homes nearby. Eventually you get close enough to par with the other houses that anyone looking for something more expensive will often choose a different neighborhood entirely. Update: To your edit that mentions the original lender will cap the amount you can borrow, you can take additional secondary mortgages/HELOCs, but the interest rate is usually higher because it is not the first mortgage. I don't generally recommend it, but the option is there.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c88ee364042d1c14d29ca70d01b5b03e",
"text": "\"If I have a house that its market value went from $100k to $140k can I get HELOC $40K? Maybe - the amount that you can borrow depends on the market value of the house, so if you already have $100k borrowed against it, it will be tough to borrow another $40k without paying a higher interest rate, since there is a real risk that the value will decrease and you will be underwater. Can I again ask for HELOC after I finish the renovation in order to do more renovation and maybe try to end up renovating the house so its value raises up to $500k? I doubt you can just \"\"renovate\"\" a house and increase its market value from $140k to $500K. Much of a house's value is determined by its location, and you can quickly outgrow a neighborhood. If you put $360k in improvements in a neighborhood where other homes are selling for $140k you will not realize nearly that amount in actual market value. People that buy $500k houses generally want to be in an area where other homes are worth around the same amount. If you want to to a major renovation (such as an addition) I would instead shop around for a Home Improvement Loan. The main difference is that you can use the expected value of the house after improvements to determine the loan balance, instead of using the current value. Once the renovations are complete, you roll it and the existing mortgage into a new mortgage, which will likely be cheaper than a mortgage + HELOC. The problem is that the cost of the improvements is generally more than the increase in market value. It also helps you make a wise decision, versus taking out a $40k HELOC and spending it all on renovations, only to find out that the increase in market value is only $10k and you're now underwater. So in your case, talk to a contractor to plan out what you want to do, which will tell you how much it will cost. Then talk to a realtor to determine what the market value with those improvements will be, which will tell you how much you can borrow. It's highly likely that you will need to pay some out-of-pocket to make up the difference, but it depends on what the improvements are and what comparable homes sell for.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a30438a8e0fe678ad8874732fadef31",
"text": "In short, your scenario could work in theory, but is not realistic... Generally speaking, you can borrow up to some percentage of the value of the property, usually 80-90% though it can vary based on many factors. So if your property currently has a value of $100k, you could theoretically borrow a total of $80-90k against it. So how much you can get at any given time depends on the current value as compared to how much you owe. A simple way to ballpark it would be to use this formula: (CurrentValue * PercentageAllowed) - CurrentMortgageBalance = EquityAvailable. If your available equity allowed you to borrow what you wanted, and you then applied it to additions/renovations, your base property value would (hopefully) increase. However as other people mentioned, you very rarely get a value increase that is near what you put into the improvements, and it is not uncommon for improvements to have no significant impact on the overall value. Just because you like something about your improvements doesn't mean the market will agree. Just for the sake of argument though, lets say you find the magic combination of improvements that increases the property value in line with their cost. If such a feat were accomplished, your $40k improvement on a $100k property would mean it is now worth $140k. Let us further stipulate that your $40k loan to fund the improvements put you at a 90% loan to value ratio. So prior to starting the improvements you owed $90k on a $100k property. After completing the work you would owe $90k on what is now a $140k property, putting you at a loan to value ratio of ~64%. Meaning you theoretically have 26% equity available to borrow against to get back to the 90% level, or roughly $36k. Note that this is 10% less than the increase in the property value. Meaning that you are in the realm of diminishing returns and each iteration through this process would net you less working capital. The real picture is actually a fair amount worse than outlined in the above ideal scenario as we have yet to account for any of the costs involved in obtaining the financing or the decreases in your credit score which would likely accompany such a pattern. Each time you go back to the bank asking for more money, they are going to charge you for new appraisals and all of the other fees that come out at closing. Also each time you ask them for more money they are going to rerun your credit, and see the additional inquires and associated debt stacking up, which in turn drops your score, which prompts the banks to offer higher interest rates and/or charge higher fees... Also, when a bank loans against a property that is already securing another debt, they are generally putting themselves at the back of the line in terms of their claim on the property in case of default. In my experience it is very rare to find a lender that is willing to put themselves third in line, much less any farther back. Generally if you were to ask for such a loan, the bank would insist that the prior commitments be paid off before they would lend to you. Meaning the bank that you ask for the $36k noted above would likely respond by saying they will loan you $70k provided that $40k of it goes directly to paying off the previous equity line.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55bd433a38d2333dc733ebaacf1980d3",
"text": "Your best bet is to talk with a banker about your specific plans. One of the causes of the housing crash was an 80/20 loan. There you would get a first for 80% of the value of a home and 20% on a HELOC for the rest. This would help the buyer avoid PMI. Editorially, the reason this was popular was because the buyer could not afford the home with the PMI and did not have a down payment. They were simply cutting things too close. Could you find a banker willing to do something like this, I bet you could. In your case it seems like you are attempting to increase the value of your home by using money to do an improvement so the situation is better. However, sizable improvements rarely return 100% or more on investments. Typically, I would think, the bank would want you to have some money invested too. So if you wanted to put in a pool, a smart banker would have you put in about 60% of the costs as pools typically have a 40% ROI. However, I bet you can find a banker that would loan you 100%. You don't seem to be looking for advice on making a smart money decision, and it is difficult to render a verdict as very little detail is supplied about your specific situation. However, while certain decisions might look very profitable on paper, they rarely take into consideration risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "63fde89d7c05259fa2e50d06f04f7286",
"text": "Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3114d45827cfc2ab35bae84dc5fce87",
"text": "\"I'm in the \"\"big mortgage\"\" camp. Or, to put this another way - what would you be happier to have in 15 years? A house that is worth $300,000, or $50,000 of equity in a house and $225,000 in the bank? I would much rather have the latter; it gives me so many more options. (the numbers are rough; you can figure it out yourself based on the current interest rate you can get on investments vs the cost of mortgage interest (which may be less if you can deduct the mortgage interest)).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9a3c0c2284554ce69d0c8db28dcfdcc",
"text": "\"Remember that risk should correlate with returns, in an investment. This means that the more risk you take on, the more return you should be receiving, in an efficient marketplace. That's why putting your money in a savings account might earn you <1% interest right now, but putting money in the stock market averages ~7% returns over time. You should be very careful not to use the word 'interest' when you mean 'returns'. In your post, you are calling capital gains (the increase in value of owned property) 'interest'. This may be understating in your head the level of risk associated with property ownership. In the case of the bank, they are not in the business of home construction. Rather than take that risk themselves, they would rather finance many projects being done by construction companies that know the business. The bank has a high degree of certainty of getting its money back, because its mortgages are protected by the value of the property. Part of the benefit of an efficient marketplace is that risk gets 'bought' by individuals who want it. This means that people with a low-risk tolerance (such as banks, people on fixed incomes, seniors, etc.) can avoid risk, and people with a high risk tolerance (stock investors, young people with high income, etc.) can take on that risk for higher average returns. The bank's reasoning should remind you of the risk associated with property ownership: increases in value are not a sure thing. If you do not understand the risk of your investment, you cannot be certain that you are being well compensated for that risk. Note also that most countries place regulations on their banks that limit the amount of their funds that can be placed in 'higher risk' asset classes. Typically, this something along the lines of \"\"If someone places a deposit with your bank, you can only invest that deposit in a low-risk debt-based asset [ie: you can take money deposited by customer A and use it to finance a mortgage for customer B]\"\". This is done in an attempt to prevent collapse of the financial sector, if risky investments start failing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9cf796c92ec075db88a0620253a15499",
"text": "\"The answer to your question depends on what you mean when you say \"\"growth\"\". If you mean a literal increase in the aggregate market capitalization of companies, across the entire market, then, no, this sort of growth is not possible without concomitant economic growth. The reason why is that the market capitalization of each company is proportional to its gross revenue, and the sum of all revenue from selling \"\"final goods\"\" (i.e., things purchased and used by consumers) is, apart from a few technicalities, the definition of GDP. The exact multiplier might fluctuate up or down depending on investors' expectations about how sales will grow or decline going forward, but in a zero-growth economy this multiplier should be stable over the long run. It might, however, still fluctuate over the short term, but more about that in a minute. Note that all of this applies to aggregate growth across all firms. Individual firms can still grow, of course, but as they must do this by gaining market share from other companies such growth would be balanced by a decline for some other firm. Also, I've assumed zero net exports (that's one of the \"\"technicalities\"\" I mentioned above) because obviously you could have export-driven growth even if the domestic economy were stationary. However, often when people talk about \"\"growth\"\" in the market, what they really mean is \"\"return\"\". That is, how much does your investment earn for you. This isn't really the same thing as growth, but people often think of it that way, particularly in the saving phase of their investing career, when they are reinvesting their returns, and therefore their account balances are growing. It is possible to have a positive return, averaged across the market, even in a stationary economy. The reason why is that there are really only two things a firm can do with its net profits. One possibility is that it could invest it in growing the business. However, there is not much point in doing that in a stationary economy because by assumption no increase in aggregate consumption (and therefore, in the long run, aggregate production) are possible. Therefore, firms are left with only the second option, which is to pay them out to investors as dividends. Those dividends provide a return that is independent of economic growth. Would the stock market still be a good investment in such an economy? Yes. Well, sort of. The rate of return from firms' dividend payouts will depend on investors' demand (in aggregate) for returns on their investments. Stock prices will rise or fall, causing returns to respectively fall or rise, to find that level. If your personal desire for returns is lower than the average across the investing public, then the stock market would look like a good investment. If your desired return is higher than the average, then it will look like a poor investment. The marginal investor will, of course be indifferent. The practical upshot of this is that the people who invest in the stock market in this scenario will be precisely the ones for whom the stock market is a good investment, given their personal propensity to save and desire for returns, and so forth. Finally, you mentioned that in your scenario the GDP stagnation is due to declining population. I am less certain what this means for investment, but my first thought is that you would have a large retired population selling its investments to fund late-life consumption, and you would have a comparatively small (relative to history) working population buying those assets. This would lead to low asset prices, and therefore high rates of return. However, that's assuming that retirees need to sell assets to fund their retirement consumption. If the absolute returns on retirees' assets are large enough to fund their retirement consumption then you would wind up with relatively few sellers, resulting in high prices and therefore relatively low rates of return. It's not obvious to me which effect would dominate, and so it's hard to say whether or not the resulting returns would look attractive to the working-age population.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "86ac34f065489f922ab0656b9e9700ab",
"text": "If your house was paid off, would you be comfortable borrowing from the equity to invest? This is essentially the same question. Also, why not ask the opposite? How much more should you be borrowing (at a similar rate) for investments? Your answer to both questions will be clues to how you view the risk/reward of borrowing against your house in order to invest. My personal preference is not to invest with borrowed money. There may be a few percent of potential returns I am missing out on. That percent return has to be analyzed in the context of a full financial plan and future goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "219825e9f65a262e7eeab06b83097b17",
"text": "The banks see small apartments as a higher risk because usually very small apartments are harder to sell, especially during a falling market when there is an oversupply of these apartments. The price of small apartments will also fall a lot quicker in a falling market. Regarding yield vs capital growth - the emphasis here is manly on high yielding properties in small country towns with small populations. How many properties can you buy with cash? Properties with good growth will enable you to build equity quicker and enable you to build a larger portfolio. In my opinion you need a combination of good yield and reasonable growth, because without yield you cannot replace your earned income with passive income, but without growth you can't expand your portfolio. So a combination of good yield with reasonable growth will give the best outcome.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57d66880aced300bb4bcaf0bfbcd4e8d",
"text": "\"I think the claim is that you shouldn't buy a house expecting it to increase in value as you would a stock portfolio. OTOH if you are looking at it from the stand point of \"\"I need housing, mortgage payments and rent are comparable and I build equity if I buy a house rather then rent\"\" that's potentiality a very different situation (that I'm not qualified to judge).\"",
"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": "049447e698bc3a74b9f5938b8d8f921e",
"text": "No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f22e594c021241f4b17a7979fa3d07c4",
"text": "The equity you have is an asset. Locked away until you sell, and sometimes pledged as a loan if you wish. The idea that it's dead money is nonsense, it's a pretty illiquid asset that has the potential for growth (at the rate of inflation or slightly higher, long term) and provides you an annual dividend in the form of free rent. In this country, most people who own homes have a disproportionate amount of their wealth in their house. This is more a testament to the poor saving rate than anything else. For me, a high equity position means that I can sell my home and buy a lesser sized house for cash. I am older and my own goal (with the mrs) is to have the house paid and college for the kid fully funded before we think of retiring. For others, it's cash they can use to rent after they retire. I hope that helped, there's nothing magic about this, just a lot of opinions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4d7f0dab1da044ee38655d1d3c8a4adb",
"text": "Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6470741c89540d9d5adea1af37740f9b",
"text": "\"I don't follow the numbers in your example, but the fundamental question you're asking is, \"\"If I can borrow money for a low cost, and if I think I can invest it and receive returns greater than that cost, should I do it?\"\" It doesn't matter where that money comes from, a mortgage that's bigger than it needs to be, a credit card teaser rate, or a margin line from your stock broker. The answer is \"\"maybe\"\" - depending on the certainty you have about the returns you'd receive on your investments and your tolerance for risk. Only you can answer that question for yourself. If you make less than your mortgage rates on the investments, you'll wish you hadn't! As an aside, I don't know anything about Belgian tax law, but in US tax law, your deductions can be limited to the actual value of the home. Your law may be similar and thus increase the effective mortgage interest rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "df735c988c5aa74cd9c91a49ea278162",
"text": "\"As someone who's done quit a bit of home improvement and seen positive ROI, I can speak from some personal experience. All of this assumes you do the unskilled labor yourself and shop around for relatively cheap plumbers, electricians, etc. First, never underestimate the resale value added by a can of paint. This assumes you have, or know someone with a good sense of style that can help improve the aesthetics of the home significantly. White walls can be so boring to homebuyers and so many of them can't see through the 1/16 of an inch of white paint. Second, look for shortcomings in the house as-is. Anyway, these are some common upgrades. The big thing is to find something you are reasonably comfortable doing yourself and that you will enjoy. Realize that if you're new to this most projects will cost twice what you budget and take four times as long! The pride of having done it yourself and put in the sweat equity makes it worth it though (usually). Edit To better answer your modified question, I'm adding to my answer. So if I understand it, your question is now \"\"At what rate is it sane to invest in our house vs. outside investments\"\". This is really just a matter of balancing risk vs. lifestyle. With most upgrades there is no financial benefit to investing in upgrading your home now vs. 5 years from now right before you sell. You could be making 10% in mutual funds until then and then invest in the upgrades right before you sell. There is obviously a physical limit to how fast you can do these improvements yourself, but front-loading this now at the beginning of your timeframe as opposed to the end is not an investment decision, it is a lifestyle decision. Not saying \"\"Don't do it\"\", but don't rationalize it to yourself as \"\"we're saving money by doing this now.\"\" Maybe use the rationalization \"\"We want to enjoy these upgrades and not just add them before we move out.\"\" One exception to that - I'd plant any trees now and make sure they have a good water supply. Good trees take a while to grow, and doing that sooner rather than later will help.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fd57f1ea690f9124b3ee57d50629d863",
"text": "\"I don't buy the \"\"house prices will always increase due to the increased cost of raw materials\"\" argument. In a lot of countries you will find that the cost of (re)building a property is substantially lower than its perceived sale value. If it wasn't, there would be no incentive for developers to take the risk of buying the land and building houses on it. Say the cost of building the house is 50% of the sale price (which might already be generous). Materials probably account for half of the building cost so you've got 25% tail wagging 75% dog? I'd start to worry if people buy property as a get rich quick scheme, which seems to be what you're describing.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "488a2e2da0765eb148803ded8cdeccfb",
"text": "Like @littleadv, I don't consider a mortgage on a primary residence to be a low-risk investment. It is an asset, but one that can be rather illiquid, depending on the nature of the real estate market in your area. There are enough additional costs associated with home-ownership (down-payment, insurance, repairs) relative to more traditional investments to argue against a primary residence being an investment. Your question didn't indicate when and where you bought your home, the type of home (single-family, townhouse, or condo) the nature of your mortgage (fixed-rate or adjustable rate), or your interest rate, but since you're in your mid-20s, I'm guessing you bought after the crash. If that's the case, your odds of making a profit if/when you sell your home are higher than they would be if you bought in the 2006/2007 time-frame. This is no guarantee of course. Given the amount of housing stock still available, housing prices could still fall further. While it is possible to lose money in all sorts of investments, the illiquid nature of real estate makes it a lot more difficult to limit your losses by selling. If preserving principal is your objective, money market funds and treasury inflation protected securities are better choices than your home. The diversification your financial advisor is suggesting is a way to manage risk. Not all investments perform the same way in a given economic climate. When stocks increase in value, bonds tend to decrease (and vice versa). Too much money in a single investment means you could be wiped out in a downturn.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9911eb73a8718486a5d2d87251d76efb
|
Credit card closed. Effect on credit score (USA)
|
[
{
"docid": "d8a0ea3b3dde6eb528f6510f15113ddb",
"text": "\"There are two factors in your credit score that may be affected. The first is payment history. Lenders like to see that you pay your bills, which is the most straightforward part of credit scores IMO. If you've actually been paying your bills on time, though, then this should still be fine. The second factor is the average age of your open accounts. Longer is considered better here because it means you have a history of paying your bills, and you aren't applying for a bunch of credit recently (in which case you may be taking on too much and will have difficulties paying them). If this card is closed, then it will no longer count for this calculation. If you don't have any other open credit accounts, then that means as soon as you open another one, your average age will be one day, and it will take a long time to get it to \"\"good\"\" levels; if you have other matured accounts, then those will balance out any new accounts so you don't get hit as much. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why it's good to get cards without yearly fees, because you can keep them open for a long time even if you switch to using a different card primarily.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e582aa35971f2928d548a53705393df8",
"text": "You need to find out if the credit card has been reporting these failed automated payments as late or missed payments to your credit report. To do this, go to annualcreditreport.com (the official site to get your free credit reports) and request your report from all three bureaus. If you see late or missing payments reported for the months where you made a payment but then they did an automatic payment anyway, you should call up the credit card company, explain the situation, and ask them to retract those negative reports. If they refuse, you should dispute the reports directly with the credit bureaus. If they have been reporting late payments even though you have been making the payments, that will impact your credit much more than the fact that they closed your account. Unfortunately, they can turn off your credit account for any reason they like, and there isn't much you can do about that. Find yourself another job as soon as you can, get back on your feet, pay off your debt, and think very carefully before you open another credit card in the future. Don't start a new credit card unless you can ensure that you will pay it off in full every month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e200134de6ac28ef887fd77d06afc741",
"text": "\"As documented in MyFICO (http://www.myfico.com/credit-education/whats-in-your-credit-score/), there are several factors that affect credit scores. Payment history (35%) The first thing any lender wants to know is whether you've paid past credit accounts on time. This is one of the most important factors in a FICO® Score. As @Ben Miller mentioned, checking your credit report to determine whether or not late payments were reported to credit bureaus will give you a sense of whether or not this was effected. You mentioned several bounced payments, which certainly could have caused this. This would be my largest concern with a closed account, is to investigate why and what was reported to the bureaus, and in turn, other lenders. Also, since this has the highest impact on credit scores (35%), it's arguably, the most important. This is further detailed here, which details the public record and late payment effect on your score. Amounts owed (30%) Having credit accounts and owing money on them does not necessarily mean you are a high-risk borrower with a low FICO® Score....However, when a high percentage of a person's available credit is been used, this can indicate that a person is overextended, and is more likely to make late or missed payments. Given that this card was closed, whatever your credit limit was is now no longer added into your total credit limit. However, your utilization on that card is gone (assuming it gets paid off), depending on any other credit lines, and since you reported \"\"heavy use\"\" that could be a positive impact, though likely not. Length of credit history (15%) In general, a longer credit history will increase your FICO® Scores. However, even people who haven't been using credit long may have high FICO Scores, depending on how the rest of the credit report looks. Depending how old your card was, and particularly since this was your only credit card, it will likely impact your average age of credit lines, depending on other lines of credit (loans etc) you have open. This accounts for about 15% of your score, so not as large of an impact as the first two. Credit mix in use (10%) FICO Scores will consider your mix of credit cards, retail accounts, installment loans, finance company accounts and mortgage loans. Given that this was your only credit card, your loan mix has been reduced (possibly to none). New credit (10%) Research shows that opening several credit accounts in a short period of time represents a greater risk - especially for people who don't have a long credit history. This focuses on credit inquiries, which as you mentioned, you will likely have another either re-opening this credit card or opening another at some point in the future. Regardless, paying off the rest of that card is a priority, as interest rates on average credit cards are over 13%, and often higher (source). This rate comes into play when not paying the balance in full every month, and also as @Ben Miller suggested, I would not utilize a credit card without being able to pay it in full. It can often be a dangerous cycle of debt.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ccc5d2a7688d21b0059a0f0a604dc7b1",
"text": "So My question is. Is my credit score going to be hit? Yes it will affect your credit. Not as much as missing payments on the debt, which remains even if the credit line is closed, and not as much as missing payments on other bills... If so what can I do about it? Not very much. Nothing worth the time it would take. Like you mentioned, reopening the account or opening another would likely require a credit check and the inquiry will add another negative factor. In this situation, consider the impact on your credit as fact and the best way to correct it is to move forward and pay all your bills on time. This is the number one key to improving credit score. So, right now, the key task is finding a new job. This will enable you to make all payments on time. If you pay on time and do not overspend, your credit score will be fine. Can I contact the creditors to appeal the decision and get them to not affect my score at the very least? I know they won't restore the account without another credit check). Is there anything that can be done directly with the credit score companies? Depending on how they characterize the closing of the account, it may be mostly a neutral event that has a negative impact than a negative event. By negative events, I'm referring to bankruptcy, charge offs, and collections. So the best way to recover is to keep credit utilization below 30% and pay all your bills and debt payments on time. (You seem to be asking how to replace this line of credit to help you through your unemployment.) As for the missing credit line and your current finances, you have to find a way forward. Opening new credit account while you're not employed is going to be very difficult, if not impossible. You might find yourself in a situation where you need to take whatever part time gig you can find in order to make ends meet until your job search is complete. Grocery store, fast food, wait staff, delivery driver, etc. And once you get past this period of unemployment, you'll need to catch up on all bills, then you'll want to build your emergency fund. You don't mention one, but eating, paying rent/mortgage, keeping current on bills, and paying debt payments are the reasons behind the emergency fund, and the reason you need it in a liquid account. Source: I'm a veteran of decades of bad choices when it comes to money, of being unemployed for periods of time, of overusing credit cards, and generally being irresponsible with my income and savings. I've done all those things and am now paying the price. In order to rebuild my credit, and provide for my retirement, I'm having to work very hard to save. My focus being financial health, not credit score, I've brought my bottom line from approximately 25k in the red up to about 5k in the red. The first step was getting my payments under control. I have also been watching my credit score. Two years of on time mortgage payments, gradual growth of score. Paid off student loans, uptick in score. Opened new credit card with 0% intro rate to consolidate a couple of store line of credit accounts. Transferred those balances. Big uptick. Next month when utilization on that card hits 90%, downtick that took back a year's worth of gains. However, financially, I'm not losing 50-100 a month to interest. TLDR; At certain times, you have to ignore the credit score and focus on the important things. This is one of those times for you. Find a job. Get back on your feet. Then look into living debt free, or working to achieve financial independence.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b72477e5c6869fd1514ba798f7f597b5",
"text": "\"Going off hearsay here. I believe your question is. \"\"Does not having a credit card lower your credit score\"\" If that is the question then in the UK at least the answer appears to be yes. Having a credit card makes you less of a risk because you have proven that you can handle a little bit of debt and pay it back. I have a really tiny credit history. Never had a credit card and the only people who will lend to me are my own bank because they can actually see my income / expenditure. When I have queried my bank and at stores offering credit they have said that no credit history isn't far off a bad credit record. Simply having a credit card and doing the odd transactions show's lenders you are at least semi-responsible and is seen as a positive. Not having a credit card and not having much else for that matter makes you an unknown and an unknown is a risk in the eyes of lenders.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c586acc7130c1efd832fbf1d1d35042",
"text": "Closing the card will be fine. The consequences are related to your available credit and actual/potential utilization. If you have less total credit, any credit you actually use will be a greater percentage of your total credit, manipulating your score downwards more greatly. The next consequence will be related to the age of your credit history, which is an average of your credit lines. This seems negligible and also beneficial for you, since your credit history is so young to begin with.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7d475ac985236303a07bffee976baea",
"text": "Of course your situation is very hurtful at a personal level, and I sympathize. I just don't get your point about being driven further into debt? It would seem that with a lower credit score you are prevented from taking on more debt. That can absolutely be hurtful especially to someone who runs a business that relies on short term credit. As for why they do this, they do it to reduce their risk - they don't want to lend more money, they are afraid that you will lose your job and default. Of course it is not as personal as I am writing it, not for you (they don't target you personally - they target your credit profile) and not for them (it is a matter of how the market views the debt and how much they can trade on such debt, not what they want to do personally). As for the TARP bailouts not releasing enough credit - this is reality. Goverment always thinks it can influence the situation more than it actually can. In order to unfreeze credit there needs to be a growing economy that makes the risk look acceptable. No amount of Goverment nudging will really change that more than marginally. By the way, legislation like this (forcing credit card companies to not raise their rates) can lead to credit restrictions. By artifically forcing the rates down the risk has to be ballanced somewhere - so it will be ballanced by lowering credit lines or by other means. Like any price control, if you restrict the price, it causes shortages. Intrest rates are the price of credit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3ade3fe075a328cb9ac02c1c950bfead",
"text": "Credit scores in the U.S. are entirely based on information contained in your credit report. The details of your credit card transactions, such as where your individual purchases are from, the amount of individual purchases, refunds, chargebacks (successful or failed), etc. do not appear on your credit report. Therefore, they can have no impact on your credit score. According to creditsavvy.com.au, credit scores in Australia are based on similar information: the information in your credit history, credit profile, and credit applications. I don't see anything that would suggest that the details of your transactions would affect your credit score.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2450a67c4c8bb535c58af429aeeb4da",
"text": "Disputing the remark seems unlikely to move your score, since it is just that -- a remark. It's hard to say whether the scoring models can/do read the remarks and incorporate them (somehow) into the scoring metric itself. Disputing the revolving account that should be reported as closed is a different matter. The question there would be what the status of that account is/was. In other words, is it showing as an open collection or some other status which would indicate the creditor still has a pending claim? If so, disputing it might have some effect, although nobody would be able to tell you for certain or even how much your score might be affected. If, as you say, that account should have been part of the bankruptcy package then getting that corrected could be important enough to achieve what you're looking for. You can try it and see, but even if the effect is minor, you still want your credit report to be a true reflection of the facts. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c2ee75557e1df0fc452a2592a523f51",
"text": "\"Yes, it can be a good idea to close unused credit cards. I am going to give some reasons why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts, and then I will talk about why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea. Why it can be a good idea to close unused accounts \"\"I'd like to close the cards.\"\" That is reason enough. Simplifying your financial life is a good thing. Fewer accounts let you focus your energy on the accounts that you actually use. Unused accounts still need to be monitored for fraud. You mentioned that you have high credit card balances that you are carrying. This may indicate that you have trouble using credit responsibly, and having more credit available to you might be a temptation for you. If these unused cards have annual fees, keeping them open will cost money. Unused cards sometimes get closed by the bank due to inactivity. As a result, the advice often given is that, in addition to not closing them, you are supposed to charge something to it every month. This, of course, takes more of your time and energy to worry about, as well as giving you another monthly bill to pay. Why it is NOT necessarily a bad idea to close unused accounts Other answers will tell you that it may hurt your credit score for two reasons: it would increase your utilization and lower your average account age. Before we talk about the validity of these two points, we need to discuss the importance of the credit score. Depending on what your credit score currently is, these actions may have minimal impact on your life. If you are in the mid 700's or higher, your score is excellent, and closing these cards will likely not impact anything for you in a significant way. If you aren't that high in your score yet, do you have an immediate need for a high score? Are you planning on getting more credit cards, or take out any more loans? I would suggest that, since you have credit card debt, you shouldn't be taking out any new loans until you get that cleaned up. So your score in the mean time is not very important. Are you currently working on eliminating this credit card debt? If so, your utilization number will improve, even after you close these accounts, when you get those paid off. Utilization has only a temporary effect on your score; when your utilization improves, your score improves immediately. Your average account age may or may not improve when you close these accounts, depending on how old they are compared to the accounts you are leaving open. However, the impact of this might not be as much as you think. I realize that this advice is different from other answers, or other things that you may read online. But in my own life, I do a lot of things that are supposedly bad for the credit score: I only have two credit cards, ages 2.5 and 1.5 years. (I closed my other cards when I got these.) My typical monthly utilization is around 25% on these cards, although I pay off the balance in full each month, never paying interest. I have no car loan anymore, and my mortgage is only 4 months old. No other debt. Despite those \"\"terrible\"\" credit practices, my credit score is very high. Conclusion Make your payments on time, get out of debt, and your score will be fine. Don't keep unwanted accounts open just because someone told you that you should.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2d0a6244ee92298c6ccc80895748690c",
"text": "Lowering of the US credit rating would affect all US bonds. Some institutional investments are required to invest in securities with a certain credit rating (i.e. money markets and some low risk mutual funds). If the credit rating is lowered these institutions would be required to dump their US bond holdings. This could have a serious affect on bond prices. The lower bond prices would drive up yields. If the US credit rating was lowered after you purchased TIPS then the price you could sell your TIPS for would most probably be lower then what you bought them. You would lose money. All US bonds, including TIPS, would be affected by a lower credit rating since the credit rating is suppose to indicate the borrower's ability to repay the debt. This is independent of inflation. TIPS provide no additional benefit over regular bonds in regard to credit rating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6bd283ae14426681300812f8a828066",
"text": "\"This answer is an attempt to answer the actual question posed. Please keep in mind that this applies specifically to the Equifax credit model that Mint uses as mentioned in the accepted answer, and that different models may react in different ways (or not at all). As mentioned in the comments, the number of total accounts you have does not have much bearing on your overall credit score. If you click on Mint's \"\"About Total Accounts\"\" link, you get the following statement: Total Accounts has a low impact on your score. Second, the way the Total Accounts score is represented is misleading. This is not a count of the total number of accounts you have open, but rather how many accounts you have in your total history. Mint's header under this metric is flat out wrong: Try to have a good mix of credit lines open. To back up the assertion that this is looking at total accounts in your credit history rather than just those that are open, my Mint report shows 2 open accounts and 7 closed accounts, for a total of 9. Under the Total Accounts metric, I am plotted smack dab in the middle of the \"\"Not Bad\"\" range, right where people with 9 would be plotted. So the proper advice here is to just let it be and only open new accounts as you need them. As you amass credit history, this metric will continue to grow naturally - it should never decrease. You may ask, then, why did your overall score decrease when you paid off your student loans? Most likely because your average age of credit dropped when you closed your loan account. If you're like most people I know, your student loan is one of your oldest accounts, so closing that account will hurt your score - credit age is measured only on your open accounts.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "36ddc2dc68b1162f8dc928fe970e3625",
"text": "Absolutely. It's the way credit is calculated. The most important things here are credit utilization (how much of your open credit you're using, the less the better for your score) and and length of open credit. The longer you've had a credit card, the more it helps your score. If you use your card and pay it off before the bill comes, the credit card company still knows you're using the card and won't close it. I recommend you download credit karma so you can track your score and learn more about how credit is calculated.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc33fc6324da01017d6a9ea463b94926",
"text": "\"You really don't know how credit scoring works. Let's think about the purpose of a credit score: to assess whether you're a high default risk. A lender wants to know, in this order: Utilization factors into the solvency assessment. If you are at 100% utilization of your unsecured credit, you're insolvent -- you can't pay your bills. If you are at 0%, you're as solvent as you can be. Most people who use credit cards are somewhere in the middle. When a bank underwrites a large loan like a mortgage or car loan, they use your credit score an application information like income and employment history to figure out what kind of loan you qualify for. Credit cards are called \"\"revolving\"\" accounts for a reason -- you're supposed to use them to buy crap and pay your bill in full at the end of the month. My advice to you:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8bba82847005e0638501d794ffa3685d",
"text": "\"0% furniture loans can hurt your credit rating. I was told by a bank mortgage officer (sorry I can't cite a document) that credit rating algorithms consider \"\"consumer\"\" loans like 0% appliance loans and certain store-specific credit cards as a negative factor, lowering your overall score. The rationalization given was that that taking that type of credit is an indicator that you have zero cash reserves. The actual algorithms are proprietary, so I don't know how you could verify this. If true, it runs counter to the conventional wisdom that getting credit and then paying it off builds your credit score.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffcd05e21d93a82f19cefb9df06b032f",
"text": "\"I'd say close them if they have fees, if you're worried about fraud or if you're going to be tempted to use them. It may have an affect on your credit rating, but it shouldn't hurt you seriously. Having too many cards gives you the \"\"opportunity\"\" to overspend, which obviously isn't good.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c39644834b92aa943e87d1ec90e0826b",
"text": "You don't need to use an open line of credit to help your credit score. You didn't ask this, but another option is to not cut up the card and keep the account open, even if you don't use it. I mention this because sometimes when you are calling in or setting up an online account to service the card, you may need to have the expiration date and CVV code on hand. This has burned me a few times as I had to hunt around for a card I rarely ever use. That being said, if you are worried that you might use the card if you know it's there, then sure, cut it up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc87b8f551e2bc7d73efaf789f7007ef",
"text": "\"This question has been absolutely perplexing to me. It has spawned a few heated debates amongst fellow colleagues and friends. My laymen understanding has provided me with what I believe to be a simple answer to the originator's question. I'm trying to use common sense here; so be gentle. FICO scores, while very complex and mysterious, are speculatively calculated from data derived from things like length of credit history, utilization, types of credit, payment history, etc. Only a select few know the actual algorithms (closely guarded secrets?). Are these really secrets? I don't know but it's the word on the street so I'm going with it! Creditors report data to these agencies on certain dates- weekly, monthly or annually. These dates may be ascertained by simply calling the respective creditor and asking. Making sure that revolving credit accounts are paid in full during the creditors \"\"data dump\"\" may or may not have a positive impact on ones FICO score. A zero balance reported every time on a certain account may appear to be inactive depending on how the algorithm has been written and vice versa; utilization and payment history may outweigh the negativity that a constantly zero balance could imply. Oh Lord, did that last sentence just come out of my head? I reread it four times just make sure it makes sense. My personal experience with revolving credit and FICO I was professionally advised to: Without any other life changing credit instances- just using the credit card in this fashion- my FICO score increased by 44 points. I did end up paying a little in interest but it was well worth it. Top tier feels great! In conclusion I would say that the answer to this question is not cut and dry as so many would imply. HMMMMM\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ceccbac66e27f4e8dd3aa3bd00de91a",
"text": "\"Assuming the question is \"\"will they close it for inactivity (alone)\"\".. the answer is \"\"Nope\"\" ... unequivocally. Update: < My answer is geared to credit Cards issues by companies that deal in credit, not merchandise (i.e. store cards, retailer cards, etc). Retailers (like Amazon, etc), want to sell goods and are in the credit card business to generate sales. Banks and credit companies (about whom I am referring) make their money primarily on interest and secondarily on service charges (either point of use charged to the vendor that accepts payment, or fees charged to the user).> The only major issuer I will say that it might be possible is Discover, because I never kept a Discover card. I also don't keep department store cards, which might possibly do this; but I do doubt it in either of those cases too. My answer is based on Having 2 AMEX cards (Optima and Blue) and multiple other Visa/MC's that I NEVER use... and most of these I have not for over 10+ years. Since I am also presuming that you are also not talking about an account that charges a yearly or other maintenance fee.. Why would they keep the account open with the overhead (statements and other mailings,etc)? Because you MIGHT use it. You MIGHT not be able to pay it off each month. Because you MIGHT end up paying thousands in interest over many years. The pennies they pay for maintaining your account and sending you new cards with chip technology, etc.. are all worth the gamble of getting recouped from you! This is why sales people waste their time with lots of people who will not buy their product, even though it costs them time and money to prospect.. because they MIGHT buy. Naturally, there are a multitude of reasons for canceling a card; but inactivity is not one. I have no less than 10+ \"\"inactive\"\" cards, one that has a balance, and two I use \"\"infrequently\"\". I really would not mind if they closed all those accounts.. but they won't ;) So enjoy your AMEX knowing that your Visa will be there when you need/want it.. The bank that issues your Visa is banking on it! (presuming you don't foul up financially) Cheers!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
de0bc8bb942eb804dd52b3154204226e
|
Home sale: No right to terminate?
|
[
{
"docid": "e511afc8eba41870dd7e88e079f1499a",
"text": "The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location. Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer. So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant). If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage. In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position. That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close. This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house. The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it. They don't really care about the house they're selling. Their job is to make the transition easy. With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase. If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over. That could make the employment change fall through. This is a variation of a no contingencies sale. Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier. Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker. But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way. In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay. This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs. This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction. If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine. However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly. You can consider any of the following: Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure. If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement. Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement. The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response. And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier. You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision. You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry. If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal. They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that. Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c72f8bb0cf9d6c9ab00c15b7630906c9",
"text": "The home owner does not start foreclosure, the bank decides when to foreclose. Therefore you cannot really decide a time to foreclose if you are trying to time the decision. The process You miss payments, and the banks will send you a late notice for the missing payments. Expect many notices. The bank will call you at home, on your cell phone and at work. They will mail you letters regarding the missing payments. If you continue to miss payments, the bank will probably demand the loan be paid in full. You will owe the bank the full balance of the principle, all past due interest, all past due late charges and junk fees. The bank won't even take a normal monthly payment from you should you try to pay your regular payment again. Some law enforcement will notify you on the bank's intent to foreclose. The bank has begun legal proceedings. Legal notices are published in the local newspaper. Soon the notices and the legal waiting period will expire. Court proceedings happen. The court will then allow the bank to foreclose. Notices to into the paper again about the updated status of the foreclosure. The house is sold at auction. Money from the auction is used to pay taxes owned, then mortgages, then other liens or creditors who file. Further debt for the home owner Taxes When sold, if the mortgage debt exceeds the home's fair market value, US Federal Tax rules say the selling price as the fair market value. The fair market value can still be higher than the tax basis (which I think is the value of the house at the time of original purchase plus improvements.). If the fair market value is higher, you will own taxes on sale. However tax rules in the US say if you have owned the home more than two years and make less than $250,000 in the transaction ($500,000 if married) you will not owe any tax. State taxes can be different. Additionally, if the mortgage lender forgives the debt and doesn't create a deficiency, that income is taxable as well. This is more an more common these days. There are exceptions if the home is your primary residence. This whole process an take several months to occur, but depends on where you live. If you continue to live in the home after the auction, the new owner must evict you from the property which is another set of legal proceedings. Your credit and ability to buy are home will be damaged for the next several years. I am not so sure on how PMI works for the banks, but I know they are getting some money back.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2aca31aee9480b820d042d7aafb6474",
"text": "Dumb Coder has already given you a link to a website that explains your rights. The only thing that remains is how to execute the return without getting more grief from the dealer. Though the legal aspects are different, I believe the principle is the same. I had a case where I had to rescind the sale of a vehicle in the US. I was within my legal rights to do so, but I knew that when I returned to the dealership they would not be pleased with my decision. I executed my plan by writing a letter announcing my intention to return the vehicle siting the relevant laws involved with a space at the bottom of the letter for the sales person to acknowledge receipt of the letter and indicate that there was no visible damage to the car when the vehicle was returned. I printed two copies of the letter, one for them to keep, and one for me to keep with the signed acknowledgement of receipt. As expected, they asked me to meet with the finance manager who told me that I wouldn't be able to return the car. I thanked him for meeting with me and told him that I would be happy to meet in court if I didn't receive a check within 7 days. (That was his obligation under the local laws that applied.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "43ad010ab1ec43b26491351bc71d1f6e",
"text": "You sold a call, I trust? I bought a call. I have the right to exercise at my will. No sense if out of the money, of course, but if in the money, I might want to capture a dividend or just start the clock for long term gains. Once I exercise, you have no option (pun intended) but to let it go. The assignment is notification, not a request for permission.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "06ff1a68b432456d3375a7be0a7c84fa",
"text": "When I bought the house I had my lawyer educate me about everything on the forms that seemed at all unclear, since this was my first time thru the process. On of the pieces of advice that he gave was that title insurance had almost no value in this state unless you had reason to believe the title might be defective but wanted to buy the property anyway. In fact I did get it anyway, as an impulse purchase -- but I'm fully aware that it was a bad bet. Especially since I had the savings to be able to self-insure, which is always the better answer if you can afford to risk the worst case scenario. Also: Ask the seller whether they bought title insurance. Often, it is transferrable at least once.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97d0fd57e54d5530a5f805cf1518f7f5",
"text": "The Military Home owners wants to remain living in the home for 2 weeks after the closing date. You can include this provision in your contract. By putting the seller directly across the table, you can put your heads together and find win-win solutions to some issues that may arise.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5d1140864a70857fc25330faae402724",
"text": "This may only apply to Canada, but I would ask if the mortgages they lend are non-transferable. Meaning if you decide in year 2 of your 5 year term that you want to sell and move you pay a penalty, rather than be able to transfer the mortgage to a new house.",
"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": "349b92f5e4a552cdcde2ec09d38be938",
"text": "The contract should address this issue. It will specify the types of remedies and damages that would result if either side tries to back out of the deal. There can be monetary penalties, and the courts can force the seller to complete the deal. Where I have experienced this it generally takes only a gentle reminder from the agent regarding the consequences. There is also limited indirect protection via the contract between the seller and their real-estate agent. Many times that contract will require the seller to pay the agent their commission if there isn't a valid reason to cancel the deal. The contract was to find a fully qualified buyer. The threat of having to pay 6% of list price to the agent, and not selling the house can be enough to get them to complete the deal. All this assumes there was fraud, which could bring in criminal penalties.",
"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": "b74742b32b99f9bd32cd60cc84d3206f",
"text": "\"Often the counter-party has obligations with respect to timelines as well -- if your buying a house, the seller probably is too, and may have a time-sensitive obligation to close on the deal. I'm that scenario, carrying the second mortgage may be enough to make that deal fall through or result in some other negative impact. Note that \"\"pre-approval\"\" means very little, banks can and do pass on deals, even if the buyer has a good payment history. That's especially true when the economy is not so hot -- bankers in 2011 are worried about not losing money... In 2006, they were worried about not making enough!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "822a8864099bd87a4e80929300b3d7b7",
"text": "\"Just brainstorming here, but my gut feeling is it should be possible to sell your home to yourself with the sole purpose of resetting your basis. Taken at face value it feels illegal, but since I think we all would agree that you could sell your house to a third party and purchase the identical house next door for the same price (thus resetting your basis), why can't you purchase the same home right back? If one is legal, it seems odd for the other not to be. That being said, I have no idea how to legally do it. Perhaps you truly need a third party to step in which you sell it to, and then buy it back from them sometime in the future. Or perhaps you could start an LLC and have it purchase your home from you. Either way, I highly suggest finding an expert real estate attorney/accountant before attempting this, and don't be surprised if you get multiple opposite opinions. I suspect this is a gray area which will highly depend on how tax \"\"aggressive\"\" you are willing to be.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "049447e698bc3a74b9f5938b8d8f921e",
"text": "No. As long as you live in the house for 3 years, it's yours to keep. Financing has nothing to do with that.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0a4893b71dec99934e4e67dee7a5b8c",
"text": "I walked away from a house last year and don't regret it a single bit. I owed $545,000 and the bank sold it a month after moving out for $328,900. So technically I guess I can be on the hook to someone for the missing $216,100 for many years to come. Oh well. They can come after me if they want and I'll declare bankruptcy then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "474ac34e146b0ed663a81fd99b692576",
"text": "You have to consider a case where you just cannot sell it. Think of it as a bad piece of real estate in Detroit. If there are absolutely no buyers, you cannot sell it (until a buyer shows up)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "23b07eb1266ecd2d2c588e753e85a00b",
"text": "\"Your agent doesn't understand what \"\"willing to sell\"\" means in the housing big market. Willing to sell doesn't mean they can wait forever to sell. It used to be these people were moving so they had to sell their house. Now the people who own houses don't need to sell it because they can just sit around and rent it to someone. If people are unwilling to list the house they are unwilling to sell the house.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
318a6c92aa1feb286593560a94b2017d
|
Best way to invest money as a 22 year old?
|
[
{
"docid": "aa2e095caac3e8601d766e12fde31a6d",
"text": "What is the goal of the money? If it is to use in the short term, like savings for a car or college, then stick it in the bank and use it for that purpose. If you really want this money to mean something, then in my opinion you have only one choice: Open a ROTH IRA with something like Vanguard or Fidelity and invest in an index fund. Then do something that will be very difficult: Don't touch it. By the time you are 65, it will grow to about 60,000. However, assuming a 20% tax bracket, the value of that money is really more like 75,000. Clearly this will not make or break you either way. The way you live the rest of your life will have far more of an impact. It will get you started on the right path. BTW this is advice I gave my son who is about your age, and does not earn a ton of money as a state trooper. Half of his overtime pay goes into a ROTH. If he lives the rest of his life like he does now, he will be a wealthy man despite making an average income. No debt, and investing a decent portion of his pay.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16d806ad1069a3d64d5c7303dd0cba85",
"text": "Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning. And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning. You may decide to pay down debt first. You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c28e0003579b1499dcead4559fd5f328",
"text": "Hopefully this $1000 is just a start, and not the last investment you will ever make. Assuming that, there are a couple of big questions to consider: One: What are you saving for? Are you thinking that this is for retirement 40 or 50 years from now, or something much sooner, like buying a car or a house? You didn't say where you live. In the U.S., if you put money into an IRA or a 401k or some other account that the government classes as a retirement account, you don't pay taxes on the profits from the investment, only on the original principal. If you leave the money invested for a long period of time, the profits can be many times the original investment, so this makes a huge difference. Like suppose that you pay 15% of your income in state and local taxes. And suppose you invest your $1000 in something that gives a 7% annual return and leave it there for 40 years. (Of course I'm just making up numbers for an example, but I think these are in a plausible range. And I'm ignoring the difference between regular income tax and capital gains tax, etc etc. It doesn't change the point.) If you put the money in a classic IRA, you pay 0% taxes the year you open the account, so you have your full $1000, figure that compound interest for 40 years, you'll end up with -- crunch crunch crunch the numbers -- $14,974. Then you pay 15% when you take it leaving you with $12,728. (The end result with a Roth IRA is exactly the same. Feel free to crunch those numbers.) But now suppose you invest in a no-retirement account so you have to pay taxes every year. Your original investment is only $850 because you have to pay tax on that, and your effective return is only 5.95% because you have to pay 15% of the 7%. So after 40 years you have -- crunch crunch -- $10,093. Quite a difference. But if you put money in a retirement account and then take it out before you retire, you pay substantial penalties. I think it's 20%. If you plan to take the money out after a year or two, that would really hurt. Two: How much risk are you willing to take? The reality of investment is that, almost always, the more risk you take, the bigger the potential returns, and vice versa. Investments that are very safe tend to have very low returns. As you're young, if you're saving for retirement, you can probably afford a fairly high amount of risk. If you lose a lot of money this year, odds are you'll get it back over the next few years, or at least be able to put more money into investments to make up for it. If you're 64 and planning to retire next year, you want to take very low-risk investments. In general, investing in government bonds is very safe but has very low returns. Corporate bonds are less safe but offer higher returns. Stocks are a little more. Of course different companies have different levels of risk: new start-ups tend to be very risky, but can give huge returns. Commodities are much higher risk. Buying on margin or selling short are ways to really leverage your money, but you could end up losing more than you invested. Mutual funds are a relatively safe way to invest in stocks and bonds because they spread your risk over many companies. Three: How much effort are you willing to put into managing your investments? How much do you know about the stock market and the commodities market and international finance and so on, and how much are you willing to learn? If your answer is that you know a lot about these things or are willing to dive in and learn a lot, that you can invest in individual stocks, bonds, commodities, etc. If your answer is that you really don't know much about all this, then it makes a lot of sense to just put your money into a mutual fund and let the people who manage the fund do all the work.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "830e7d4656847c4e1156d0bded526e60",
"text": "The classic answer is simple. Aim to build up a a financial cushion that is the equivalent of 3 times your monthly salary. This should be readily accessible and in cash, to cover any unforeseen expenses that you may incur (car needs repairing, washing machine breaks down etc). Once you have this in place its then time to think about longer term investments. Monthly 'drip feeding' into a mutual stock based investment fund is a good place to start. Pick a simple Index based or fund with a global investment bias and put in a set amount that you can regularly commit to each month. You can get way more complicated but for sheer simplicity and longer term returns, this is a simple way to build up some financial security and longer term investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1064fdecc92155663d3b8808178a2388",
"text": "\"First off, monozok is right, at the end of the day, you should not accept what anyone says to do without your money - take their suggestions as directions to research and decide for yourself. I also do not think what you have is too little to invest, but that depends on how liquid you need to be. Often in order to make a small amount of money grow via investments, you have to be willing to take all the investment profits from that principle and reinvest it. Thus, can you see how your investment ability is governed by the time you plan to spend without that money? They mantra that I have heard from many people is that the longer you are able to wait, the more 'risk' you can take. As someone who is about the same age as you (I'm 24) I can't exactly say yet that what I have done is sure fire for the long term, but I suggest you adopt a few principles: 1) Go read \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" by Burton G. Malkiel. A key point for you might be that you can do better than most of these professional investors for hire simply by putting more money in a well selected index fund. For example, Vanguard is a nice online service to buy indexes through, but they may require a minimum. 2) Since you are young, if you go into any firm, bank, or \"\"financial planner,\"\" they will just think you are naive and try to get you to buy whatever is best for them (one of their mutual funds, money market accounts, annuities, some flashy cd). Don't. You can do better on your own and while it might be tempting because these options look more secure or well managed, most of the time you will barely make above inflation, and you will not have learned very much. 3) One exciting thin you should start learning now is about algorithmic trading because it is cool and super efficient. quantopian.com is a good platform for this. It is a fun community and it is also free. 4) One of the best ways I have found to watch the stock market is actually through a stock game app on my phone that has realtime stock price feed. Seeking Alpha has a good mobile app interface and it also connects you to news that has to do with the companies you are interested in.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "25bba446bab6025f3ba5a43c75c5eea3",
"text": "In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30feb5a4ba881b67248e3400ceb0ad70",
"text": "\"What a lovely position to find yourself in! There's a lot of doors open to you now that may not have opened naturally for another decade. If I were in your shoes (benefiting from the hindsight of being 35 now) at 21 I'd look to do the following two things before doing anything else: 1- Put 6 months worth of living expenses in to a savings account - a rainy day fund. 2- If you have a pension, I'd be contributing enough of my salary to get the company match. Then I'd top up that figure to 15% of gross salary into Stocks & Shares ISAs - with a view to them also being retirement funds. Now for what to do with the rest... Some thoughts first... House: - If you don't want to live in it just yet, I'd think twice about buying. You wouldn't want a house to limit your career mobility. Or prove to not fit your lifestyle within 2 years, costing you money to move on. Travel: - Spending it all on travel would be excessive. Impromptu travel tends to be more interesting on a lower budget. That is, meeting people backpacking and riding trains and buses. Putting a resonable amount in an account to act as a natural budget for this might be wise. Wealth Managers: \"\"approx. 12% gain over 6 years so far\"\" equates to about 1.9% annual return. Not even beat inflation over that period - so guessing they had it in ultra-safe \"\"cash\"\" (a guaranteed way to lose money over the long term). Give them the money to 'look after' again? I'd sooner do it myself with a selection of low-cost vehicles and equal or beat their return with far lower costs. DECISIONS: A) If you decided not to use the money for big purchases for at least 4-5 years, then you could look to invest it in equities. As you mentioned, a broad basket of high-yielding shares would allow you to get an income and give opportunity for capital growth. -- The yield income could be used for your travel costs. -- Over a few years, you could fill your ISA allowance and realise any capital gains to stay under the annual exemption. Over 4 years or so, it'd all be tax-free. B) If you do want to get a property sooner, then the best bet would to seek out the best interest rates. Current accounts, fixed rate accounts, etc are offering the best interest rates at the moment. Usual places like MoneySavingExpert and SavingsChampion would help you identify them. -- There's nothing wrong with sitting on this money for a couple of years whilst you fid your way with it. It mightn't earn much but you'd likely keep pace with inflation. And you definitely wouldn't lose it or risk it unnecessarily. C) If you wanted to diversify your investment, you could look to buy-to-let (as the other post suggested). This would require a 25% deposit and likely would cost 10% of rental income to have it managed for you. There's room for the property to rise in value and the rent should cover a mortgage. But it may come with the headache of poor tenants or periods of emptiness - so it's not the buy-and-forget that many people assume. With some effort though, it may provide the best route to making the most of the money. D) Some mixture of all of the above at different stages... Your money, your choices. And a valid choice would be to sit on the cash until you learn more about your options and feel the direction your heart is pointing you. Hope that helps. I'm happy to elaborate if you wish. Chris.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e0a649f4daee3afb9ef5f74bc34ea44",
"text": "\"For most, confidence comes with knowledge and experience. To understand more about how investing works, read articles about types of investments that you're interested in and browse the questions on this site. To gain experience, start with a \"\"paper money\"\" trading account. Most brokers will allow you to apply for a \"\"fake\"\" account so you can practice trading with simulated money. Once you've built up some confidence, you may wish to start investing a small amount of real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "af04010eba37564a0e74dcfc341e05a5",
"text": "Since there is no match on the 401k, it seems to me that your first priority should be your IRA (Roth or otherwise). I don't know what your salary is, but most 22 year-olds won't be maxing out both an IRA and 401k on only 10% of their incomes, so the rest of the list may be irrelevant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95bb327dabf621795a92207ce1106bb2",
"text": "This post has been wrote in 2014, so if you read this text be aware. At the time, and since France does tax a lot investment, I'd suggest you start a PEA and filling in using the lazy investment portfolio. That means buying European and/or French ETFs & index, and hold them as long as you can. You can fill your PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Action) up to 150.000€ for a period of at least 8 years as long as you fill it with European and French stocks. After the period of 8 years your profit is taxed at only mere 15%, instead of the 33% you see in a raw broker account. Since you are young, I think a 100% stocks is something you can hold on. If you can't sleep at night with 100% stocks, take some bonds up to 25%, even more. Anyway, the younger you start investing, the more ahead you may eventually go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e5d09bd5bf8010c91e56c2f024db447",
"text": "If you want to retire in 7 years at age 35 and only currently have 150k, and you need to ask this question of how to invest your money (risk free), then you will not be retiring at age 35 nor buying your house. It is possible to do (but not risk free - in fact you will need to take quite a bit of risk) but you would need to have a detailed plan about how you would go about to achieve this goal, what assets you would be investing in, and what risk management you would have in place. If you have to ask this question all you have is a goal but no plan. You probably will need to do plenty of research in the types of investment you prefer and develop a plan to take you to your destination. This could take you a year or 10 years, depending on how motivated you are in acheiving your goals.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "695d9044391183d088ac37025b39cdb2",
"text": "If it's money you can lose, and you're young, why not? Another would be motifinvesting where you can invest in ideas as opposed to picking companies. However, blindly following other investors is not a good idea. Big investors strategies might not be similar to yours, they might be looking for something different than you. If you're going to do that, find someone with similar goals. Having investments, and a strategy, that you believe in and understand is paramount to investing. It's that belief, strategy, and understanding that will give you direction. Otherwise you're just going to follow the herd and as they say, sheep get slaughtered.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "24bde5cc34ca02716339d0bb8a4accbc",
"text": "I would not advise any stock-picking or other active management (even using mutual funds that are actively managed). There is a large body of knowledge that needs learning before you even attempt that. Stay passive with index funds (either ETFs or (even better) low-cost passive mutual funds (because these prevent you from buying/selling). But I have not problem saying you can invest 100% in equity as long as your stomach can handle the price swings. If you freek out after a 25% drop that does not recover within a year, so you sell at the market bottom, then you are better off staying with a lot less risk. It is personal. There are a lot of valid reasons for young people to accept more risk - and equally valid reason why not. See list at http://www.retailinvestor.org/saving.html#norisk",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "965faa14f779d2158cfbb2260982ea77",
"text": "\"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ee2c4b844bf6867deea08781a2c05ee9",
"text": "\"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca345ea66f077eab164938dda4afdc2e",
"text": "\"You can't get much better advice for a young investor than from Warren Buffet. And his advice for investors young and old, is \"\"Put 10% of the cash in short‑term government bonds, and 90% in a very low‑cost S&P 500 index fund.\"\" Or as he said at a different time, \"\"Most investors, both institutional and individual, will find that the best way to own common stocks is through an index fund that charges minimal fees\"\". You are not going to beat the market. So just save as much money as you can, and invest it in something like a Vanguard no-load, low-cost mutual fund. Picking individual stocks is fun, but treat it as fun. Never put in more money than you would waste on fun. Then any upside is pure gravy.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33",
"text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f18f367b4b8b041cb81a43befb98db03",
"text": "I'm not aware of any method to own US stocks, but you can trade them as contract for difference, or CFDs as they are commonly known. Since you're hoping to invest around $1000 this might be a better option since you can use leverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "acd6ecb60230cccbe47d3f7ed7d5ef80",
"text": "Take the easy approach - as suggested by John Bogle (founder of Vanguard - and a man worthy of tremendous respect). Two portfolios consisting of 1 index fund each. Invest your age% in the Fixed Income index fund. Invest (1-age)% in the stock index fund. Examples of these funds are the Total Market Index Fund (VTSMX) and the Total Bond Market Index (VBMFX). If you wish to be slightly more adventurous, blend (1-age-10)% as the Total Market Index Fund and a fixed 10% as Total International Stock Index (VGTSX). You will sleep well at night for most of your life.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "02c97ee4d736684a28ad22e6d03a7610",
"text": "\"I'd like to modify the \"\"loss\"\" idea that's been mentioned in the other two answers. I don't think a retail location needs to be losing money to be a candidate for sale. Even if a retail location is not operating at a loss, there may be incentive to sell it off to free up cash for a better-performing line of business. Many large companies have multiple lines of business. I imagine Sunoco makes money a few ways including: refining the gas and other petroleum products, selling those petroleum products, selling gas wholesale to franchised outlets or other large buyers, licensing their brand to franchised outlets, selling gas and convenience items direct to consumers through its own corporate-owned retail outlets, etc. If a company with multiple lines of business sees a better return on investment in certain businesses, it may make sense to sell off assets in an under-performing business in order to free up the capital tied up by that business, and invest the freed-up capital in another business likely to perform better. So, even \"\"money making\"\" assets are sometimes undesirable relative to other, better performing assets. Another case in which it makes sense to sell an asset that is profitable is when the market is over-valuing it. Sell it dear, and buy it back cheap later.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
964409b0f565eed37a5150e2acbccd41
|
What are the advantages of a Swiss bank account?
|
[
{
"docid": "0ff97fdc7a3510f25ff7d3820da6ec25",
"text": "A lot of Americans have used Swiss bank accounts to avoid paying taxes. However recently several large Swiss banks have started disclosing the details on some of their customers to the IRS. There isn't much security in Swiss banking at this point in time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3eaacc24784c090d2d5bdb857dcd3a9",
"text": "\"This doesn't answer your question, but as an aside, it's important to understand that your second and third bullet points are completely incorrect; while it used to be true that Swiss bank accounts often came with \"\"guarantees\"\" of neutrality and privacy, in recent years even the Swiss banks have been caving to political pressure from many sides (especially US/Obama), with regards to the most extreme cases of criminals. That is to say, if you're a terrorist or a child molester or in possession of Nazi warcrime assets, Swiss banks won't provide the protection you're interested in. You might say \"\"But I'm not a terrorist or a pervert or profiteering of war crimes!\"\" but if you're trying so hard to hide your personal assets, it's worth wondering how much longer until Swiss banks make further concessions to start providing information on PEOPLE_DOING_WHAT_YOU_ARE_DOING. Not to discourage you, this is just food for thought. The \"\"bulletproof\"\" protection these accounts used to provide has been compromised. I work with online advertising companies, and a number of people I know in the industry get sued on a regular basis for copyright or trademark infringement or spamming; most of these people still trust Swiss bank accounts, because it's still the best protection available for their assets, and because Swiss banks haven't given up details on someone for spamming... yet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0540931e47342a4bd7e2110805f6c79",
"text": "For an American it nearly impossible to open a Swiss bank account. Even a Swiss person want to open a bank account, we have to fill out a document, which asks us if we have a greencard or other relationships with the united states. Some Swiss banks have transferred the money of Americans to Singapore to protect their clients. So you see, the Swiss banks do very much for their clients. And yes, we don't ask very much about money ;) And we are a politically neutral country, but we like the United States more than Russia and of course we have enemies, like the ISIS",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1b99abcb36e9f3b0f6063906d0641295",
"text": "\"Here are some reasons why it is advantageous to hold a portion of your savings in other countries: However, it should be noted that there are some drawbacks to holding funds in foreign banks: Don't worry; I haven't forgotten about the elephant in the room. What about tax evasion and money laundering? In general, simply transferring funds to a foreign jurisdiction will do nothing to help you evade taxes or hide evidence of a crime. Pretty much any method you can think of to transfer money is easily traceable, and any method that is difficult to trace is either illegal or heavily-regulated, with stiff penalties if you get caught. There are a few jurisdictions that have very strict banking privacy laws (the Philippines, for example). If you can somehow get the money into a bank account in one of these countries, you might be OK... at least, until that country's government decides (or is pressured) to change its banking privacy laws. But, what would you actually do with that money? Unless you want to go live in that country, you're going to have to transfer the funds out to spend them, and now you're right back on the radar — except now it's even worse, because the fact that the funds come from a suspicious jurisdiction will automatically cause your transfer to get flagged for investigation! This is where money laundering comes into play. There are lots of ways to go about this (exceptionally illegal) activity, many of which do not involve banks at all (at least, not directly). How money laundering works is outside the scope of this question, but in case you are curious, here are a couple of articles about the \"\"dark side\"\" of finance: In short, if you want to break the law, opening a foreign bank account isn't going to help much. In fact, the real crime is that offshore banking has such a criminal reputation in the first place! That said, it is possible to create legal distance between yourself and your money by using a corporate structure, and there are legitimate reasons why you might want to do this. Depending on which jurisdiction(s) you are a tax resident of, you can use this method to: Exactly how to do this is outside the scope of this question, but it's worth thinking about, especially if you have an interest in geopolitically diversifying your financial assets. If you're interested in learning more, I came across a pretty comprehensive article about Offshore Basics that covers how and why to set up offshore legal structures. (and yes, that makes now 4 links from the same site in one post! I promise it's just a coincidence; see disclaimer below) I am a US citizen with bank accounts in several countries (but not Switzerland; there are far better options out there right now). I have no affiliation with the website linked in this answer; while I was doing research for this answer, I found some really good supporting content, and it all just happened to be from the same source.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c41887f452951ca0fff3e00ea632073a",
"text": "The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank. Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred. However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest. (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6a037db016889cbfb094b7aba3bbf842",
"text": "I have worked for BNP (BNP PARIBAS) a french bank. From my experience it is the easiest sale to make when working for a bank. Because saving is sold as a long term investment your client is not likely to close the account any time soon. From this product on you could open a broker account if the client wants to take more risks ( yhea yet another sale). If the client is very keen on no risks, there are insurance products (they make plenty of money from insurance) or callable investments that you can propose. Retail banking works by attracting a maximum number of people and selling them a maximum amount of product. To answer you question is it profitable? I am sure it is not ( right now your savings account costs the bank money because of super low rates in the EU). I think it is all about increasing or maintaining market-share that you see some banks offering some cash just for opening an account. At the moment we have to sell credit cards to people that is where banks make good money. If you would like me to go more in depth on a specific subject i mentioned here just ask. Hope it helped.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9c7e9fdd7c91b218a2c43b183b06dad3",
"text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531",
"text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99d140993e72032226919ac7ef175059",
"text": "A checking account is one that permits the account holder to write demand drafts (checks), which can be given to other people as payment and processed by the banks to transfer those funds. (Think of a check as a non-electronic equivalent of a debit card transaction, if that makes more sense to you.) Outside of the ability to write checks, and the slightly lower interest rate usually offered to trade off against that convenience, there really is no significant difference between savings and checking accounts. The software needs to be designed to handle checking accounts if it's to be sold in the US, since many of us do still use checks for some transactions. Adding support for other currencies doesn't change that. If you don't need the ability to track which checks have or haven't been fully processed, I'd suggest that you either simply ignore the checking account feature, or use this category separation in whatever manner makes sense for the way you want to manage your money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "638947ae1029dd877c240c92506276e6",
"text": "Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a9db00ea0772b57065383a8e332b99a",
"text": "Opening account in foreign bank is possible, but you must have strong proofs you use it for legitimate purposes. More chances to get an account if you visit Europe and able to stay, for example, for a week, to visit bank in person and wait for all the checks and approvals. Also keep in mind that there will be deposit/withdraw limits and fees applicable, that are significantly stricter and larger for non-EU citizen. In my opinion, if your amounts are not large, it might not worth it. If amounts are large, you might consider business account rather than personal, as is the example of strong proof I meant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f1dcfb9e79ae898f9ee9f928c340c088",
"text": "Switzerland was once known for its high regard for private property rights. Recently it is has started to violate those rights by forcing banks to turn over the names of account holders to the US government. Not a great trend. Another aspect that makes Switzerland an attractive place for people and businesses is the Swiss governemnt's neutral policy. The Swiss government is not deploying the Swiss military around the globe to fight terrorism, to spread democracy, to advance its own power, or other such murderous government programs. The Swiss people do not have to worry about the payback that arrives because of such depraved government programs. The Swiss were traditionally extreme advocates of individual gun rights which allows the people to provide protection for themselves against others and against the government. This too is changing (read section on The Enemy Within) in a not so favorable direction. I also belive the Swiss Franc was the last major currency to sever its tie to gold. The currency use to be highly desired due to its tie to gold. I think the currency is still highly regarded but the Swiss central bank is participating in the currency war and has attempted multiple times in the past couple of years to debase its currency so it does not appreciate against the euro or dollar.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfb1d579fa57cc2707585d49c1d08d17",
"text": "The Livret A is a very specific product. It's tax-exempt and would historically not be available through regular banks. Commercial banks can now offer it but they only collect the money on behalf of the Caisse des dépôts (CDC). The CDC then pays interest to the savers and a commission for the bank. The commission is baked into the system, not charged to the customer directly but since the interest rate is set centrally, banks cannot compete on that. So this is risk-free money for them (but on the flip side it does not help them meet capital adequacy requirements). Other savings account or products have different rules. Another angle to consider is that a livret A was historically very attractive for consumers (and was certainly perceived as such) so that many people would have a checking account at a regular bank and another account at the Caisse d'épargne or the Banque postale just to open a livret A. For commercial banks, the alternative therefore isn't having your money on your checking account vs. your livret A or another savings account, it was having your money on a livret A they administer vs. seeing you run away to another institution. There is also a cap on the livret A and you're not allowed to save more money by opening several of them at different banks. At the same time banks have been complaining that the decrease of the interest rate (and consequently of their commission) makes the whole scheme a lot less interesting for them. For what it's worth, I recently (re)opened a bank account in France after living abroad for a long time and the customer advisor did not seem particularly interested in pushing a livret A.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f36e485e0a7440fb5ee9b39247f2c2c5",
"text": "A lot depends on how much is in the account, and whether you expect to be returning (or having any sort of financial dealings) in Europe in the future. My own experience (about 10 years out of date, and with Switzerland) is that the easiest way to transfer reasonable amounts (a few thousand dollars) was simply to get it in $100 bills from the European bank. I also kept the account open for a number of years while living in the US (doing contracting that was paid into the European bank), and could withdraw money from American ATMs. I eventually had to close the account due to issues between the bank and the IRS. I think it was only that particular bank (UBS) that was the problem, though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6848e7ec4c1f2dd2f1436826fa588d0b",
"text": "I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d427454233c0d783d21e0a603b04874",
"text": "Verify if a local bank offers to participate in different stock markets - big companies like apple or facebook often gets traded on different markets - like Xetra (germany) or SIX (Switzerland). That being said I'd recommend you to rethink this strategy and maybe using some products offered by your bank - for 1000$ you will quickly drown in fees (my bank requires 40$ for every trade. If you buy and sell them you already lost nearly 10% of your investment)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2619366ee98c92d3d5591dded0e17043",
"text": "You can remotely close the account and transfer the money out to your account in home country. If you have netbanking you can also setup remittance service to your country",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6aa2924261e912bdbcdaa2d5fed67f",
"text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7b02a1425b070d95d4ee01a66f4f5f56",
"text": "This all depends on your timeline and net worth. If you're short on time before you plan to start spending it or have a large net worth, parking some of your money in CDs is a good idea. If you have lots of time or not much net worth, then index funds are a better bet. Equity or dividend index funds are the way to go when you have 10+ years before you reach your goal. CDs major downside is that they don't beat inflation 1 - 3% a year. This is why you only use them when it's absolutely critical you hold onto every penny of the principal. The reason is because with CDs your 10k is actually losing its value (not the principal) the longer you leave it in CDs. I generally wouldn't recommend CDs unless you are in or approaching your 60s or have assets over 500k. Even still I would limit the use of CDs to no more than 20%. I would view them as catastrophic loss protection.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
07ae718d7df1c77e3d1f39185a7b46b7
|
Did my salesman damage my credit? What can I do?
|
[
{
"docid": "4343d69b98c82e18a62d67a5bf7d42d0",
"text": "This shows the impact of the inquiries. It's from Credit Karma, and reflects my inquiries over the past two years. In my case, I refinanced 2 properties and the hit is after this fact, so my score at 766 is lower than when approved. You can go to Credit Karma and see how your score was impacted. If in fact the first inquiry did this, you have cause for action. In court, you get more attention by having sufficient specific data to support your claim, including your exact damages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ca6825a395b2bee9c84e0f46ececc662",
"text": "\"At one point in my life I sold cars and from what I saw, three things stick out. Unless the other dealership was in the same network, eg ABC Ford of City A, and ABC Ford of City B, they never had possession of that truck. So, no REAL application for a loan could be sent in to a bank, just a letter of intent, if one was sent at all. With a letter of intent, a soft pull is done, most likely by the dealership, where they then attached that score to the LOI that the bank has an automated program send back an automatic decline, an officer review reply, or a tentative approval (eg tier 0,1,2...8). The tentative approval is just that, Tentative. Sometime after a lender has a loan officer look at the full application, something prompts them to change their offer. They have internal guidelines, but lets say an app is right at the line for 2-3 of the things they look at, they chose to lower the credit tier or decline the app. The dealership then goes back and looks at what other offers they had. Let's say they had a Chase offer at 3.25% and a CapOne for 5.25% they would say you're approved at 3.5%, they make their money on the .25%. But after Chase looks into the app and sees that, let's say you have been on the job for actually 11 months and not 1 year, and you said you made $50,000, but your 1040 shows $48,200, and you have moved 6 times in the last 5 years. They comeback and say no he is not a tier 2 but a tier 3 @ 5.5%. They switch to CapOne and say your rate has in fact gone up to 5.5%. Ultimately you never had a loan to start with - only a letter of intent. The other thing could be that the dealership finance manager looked at your credit score and guessed they would offer 3.5%, when they sent in the LOI it came back higher than he thought. Or he was BSing you, so if you price shopped while they looked for a truck you wouldn't get far. They didn't find that Truck, or it was not what they thought it would be. If a dealership sees a truck in inventory at another dealer they call and ask if it's available, if they have it, and it's not being used as a demo for a sales manager, they agree to send them something else for the trade, a car, or truck or whatever. A transfer driver of some sort hops in that trade, drives the 30 minutes - 6 hours away and comes back so you can sign the Real Application, TODAY! while you're excited about your new truck and willing to do whatever you need to do to get it. Because they said it would take 2-5 days to \"\"Ship\"\" it tells me it wasn't available. Time Kills Deals, and dealerships know this: they want to sign you TODAY! Some dealerships want \"\"honest\"\" money or a deposit to go get the truck, but reality is that that is a trick to test you to make sure you are going to follow through after they spend the gas and add mileage to a car. But if it takes 2 days+, The truck isn't out there, or the dealer doesn't have a vehicle the other dealership wants back, or no other dealership likes dealing with them. The only way it would take that long is if you were looking for something very rare, an odd color in an unusual configuration. Like a top end model in a low selling color, or configuration you had to have that wouldn't sell well - like you wanted all the options on a car except a cigarette lighter, you get the idea. 99.99% of the time a good enough truck is available. Deposits are BS. They don't setup any kind of real contract, notice most of the time they want a check. Because holding on to a check is about as binding as making you wear a chicken suit to get a rebate. All it is, is a test to see if you will go through with signing the deal. As an example of why you don't let time pass on a car deal is shown in this. One time we had a couple want us to find a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid in red with every available option. Total cost was about $85-90k. Only two new Red Escalade hybrids were for sale in the country at the time, one was in New York, and the other was in San Fransisco, and our dealership is in Texas, and neither was wanting to trade with us, so we ended up having to buy the SUV from one of the other dealerships inventory. That is a very rare thing to do by the way. We took a 25% down payment, around $20,000, in a check. We flew a driver to wherever the SUV was and then drove it back to Texas about 4 days later. The couple came back and hated the color, they would not take the SUV. The General Manager was pissed, he spent around $1000 just to bring the thing to Texas, not to mention he had to buy the thing. The couple walked and there was nothing the sales manager, GM, or salesman could do. We had not been able to deliver the car, and ultimately the dealership ate the loss, but it shows that deposits are useless. You can't sell something you don't own, and dealerships know it. Long story short, you can't claim a damage you never experienced. Not having something happen that you wanted to have happen is not a damage because you can't show a real economic loss. One other thing, When you sign the paperwork that you thought was an application, it was an authorization for them to pull your credit and the fine print at the bottom is boiler plate defense against getting sued for everything imaginable. Ours took up about half of one page and all of the back of the second page. I know dealing with car dealerships is hard, working at them is just as hard, and I'm sorry that you had to deal with it, however the simplest and smoothest car deals are the ones where you pay full price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a1fb8aedb73144090ad3c2c369cc4336",
"text": "You can sue them for damages. It would be hard to convince the court that the drop in the credit score was because of that loan, but not unthinkable. Especially if you sue through the small-claims court, where the burden of proof is slightly less formal, you have a chance to win and have them pay the difference in rates that it cost you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "990ee84479564d58ebd1880610c64df2",
"text": "Hindsight is 20/20, but I offer some suggestions for how this might have gone down. If you had told the bank what was going on they might have extended the terms of your loan until the truck was ready. Alternatively you might have taken the loan (was it secured on the truck?) and put the money in a savings account until the truck showed up, while asking the dealer to pay the interest on it until the truck showed up. Or you might asked the dealer to supply you with a rental truck until yours showed up. I'm not saying I would have thought of these under the circumstances, but worth trying.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e57f4deb0fd8fe7f89b86f1b55d1942c",
"text": "Visa, Mastercard have very strong consumer protection. I have been wondering about this question for a while but never got around to asking it here: What happens if a retailer knowingly defrauds me? My guess is the first party to ask for help is Visa, Mastercard: a retailer knowingly defrauding you is unlikely to refund you any money. However, slip-ups do happen. If this is a retailer of good repute, they will not only refund you the money but send you a gift card too! Please do followup this post with what helped you in the end, but my guess is, your first (and last) line of defense would be Visa, Mastercard. Anything that would go through the bank would take such a lot of time and effort, that you would be better off writing it off.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8785bed1c0db891da8bbb9ac28373e9d",
"text": "The problem is that the reason you find out may be that you are at the car dealer, picked out a car, and getting ready to sign the loan papers with your supposedly good credit, and you are denied for late payment on loans you didn't know you have. Or debt collectors start hounding you. Or you credit card interest rates go up. Or you are charged more for your insurance because you are seen as a bad credit risk. Or you can't rent an apartment. The list is almost endless. It can takes many months and hours spent on the phone to fix these things.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "393ee932bbcbbe5f9751ffa34a64af45",
"text": "\"It sounds like you're basing your understanding of your options regarding financing (and even if you need a car) on what the car salesman told you. It's important to remember that a car salesman will do anything and say anything to get you to buy a car. Saying something as simple as, \"\"You have a low credit score, but we can still help you.\"\" can encourage someone who does not realize that the car salesman is not a financial advisor to make the purchase. In conclusion,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8dd39c134b021fc7a9cdd1e9649d9123",
"text": "\"Whether or not PayPal itself reports to the credit bureaus, the collector **will**. That said, you can demand the collector \"\"validate\"\" the debt, which if you were scammed could make for an interesting scenario - PayPal *doesn't* normally play the role of a creditor, so the very fact that you \"\"owe\"\" them money is an unusual situation in and of itself. I'm not entirely sure how they would go about validating that debt - They haven't provided you any goods or services, you don't have any form of loan outstanding with them... The legitimacy of the \"\"debt\"\" consists **entirely** of them siding with the other party in a he-said-she-said dispute. I'd be interested to hear what the collector replies with when you demand validation of the debt!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f875773b3931c949ac2f8740ce3d17cc",
"text": "I dont think the author really understands why or how credit bureaus work, why they exist, and therefore where the blame exists for incorrect data. No credit bureau wants incorrect data, for obvious reasons, but it happens. That's one reason why they let you get access to your credit score, to check it the data is correct and make the 'product' (data about you) better. The source of the data is always to blame for something being incorrect though. That's banks, utilities companies, etc. A credit bureau can't check any more than they do already. But they can improve how they deal with mistakes or badly matched data. Not sure about how that works in the US, but here in EU there are strict rules about how mistakes are corrected, and how long it takes. As for storing it in block chain.. That wouldn't really solve OPs problem with credit bureaus. Someone still needs to collect and match data, and that's arguably harder than securing the data in the first place.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38e6f994948ad1b2242f8d7044c77cf4",
"text": "People can and do intentionally hurt other people's credit scores all the time. This is why there are so many services to get your credit report checked, because it is very possibly that somebody did use your social security number to get a mortgage on a house or a car or open credit cards you didn't even know about, or even collections efforts you didn't know about. It is possible that organizations hard pulled your account multiple times and paid for it. The deterrents are inadequate and ultimately leave you with the messed up credit worthiness, regardless if civil or criminal charges were levied.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7d643ed047c1d902947122689b38d25b",
"text": "\"Banks have a financial, and regulational duty called \"\"Know your customer\"\", established to avoid a number of historical problems occurring again, such as money laundering, terrorism financing, fraud, etc. Thanks to the scale, and scope of the problem (millions of customers, billions of transactions a day), the way they're handling this usually involves fuzzy logics matching, looking for irregular patterns, problem escalation, and other warning signs. When exceeding some pre-set limit, these signal clues are then filtered, and passed on for human inspection. Needless to say, these algorithms are not perfect, although, thanks to financial pressure, they are improving. In order to understand why your trading account has been suspended, it's useful to look at the incentives: false positives -suspending your trade, and assuming you guilty until proven otherwise- could cost them merely your LTV (lifetime value of customer -how much your business brings in as profit); while false negatives -not catching you while engaging in activities listed above- might cost them multi-month investigations, penalties, and court. Ultimately, this isn't against you. I've been with the bank for 15 years and the money in the accounts has been very slowly accumulated via direct-deposit paychecks over that time. From this I gather the most likely explanation, is that you've hit somekind of account threshold, that the average credit-happy customers usually do not exceed, which triggered a routine checkup. How do you deal with it? Practice puppetry! There is only one way to survive angry customers emotionally: you have to realize that they’re not angry at you; they’re angry at your business, and you just happen to be a convenient representative of that business. And since they’re treating you like a puppet, an iconic stand-in for the real business, you need to treat yourself as a puppet, too. Pretend you’re a puppeteer. The customer is yelling at the puppet. They’re not yelling at you. They’re angry with the puppet. Your job is to figure out, “gosh, what can I make the puppet say that will make this person a happy customer?” In an investigation case, go with boredom: The puppet doesn't care, have no feelings, and is eternally patient. Figure out what are the most likely words that will have the matter \"\"mentally resolved\"\" from the investigator's point of view, tell them what they have to hear, and you'll have case closed in no time. Hope this helps.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "731e7426b1c10079a551d93a3bc2c00d",
"text": "If you know that you have a reasonable credit history, and you know that your FICO score is in the 690-neighborhood, and the dealer tells you that you have no credit history, then you also know one of two things: Either way, you should walk away from the deal. If the dealer is willing to lie to you about your credit score, the dealer is also willing to give you a bad deal in other respects. Consider buying a cheaper used car that has been checked out by a mechanic of your choice. If possible, pay cash; if not, borrow as small an amount as possible from a credit union, bank, or even a very low-interest rate credit card. (Credit cards force you to pay off the loan quickly, and do not tie up your car title. I still have not managed to get my credit union loan off of my car title, ten years after I paid it off.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03c89b9c8a7b1f7dc27747751e1c316",
"text": "\"This is completely disgusting, utterly unethical, deeply objectionable, and yes, it is almost certainly illegal. The Federal Trade Commission has indeed filed suit, halted ads, etc in a number of cases - but these likely only represent a tiny percentage of all cases. This doesn't make what the car dealer's do ok, but don't expect the SWAT team to bust some heads any time soon - which is kind of sad, but let's deal with the details. Let's see what the Federal Trade Commission has to say in their article, Are Car Ads Taking You for a Ride? Deceptive Car Ads Here are some claims that may be deceptive — and why: Vehicles are available at a specific low price or for a specific discount What may be missing: The low price is after a downpayment, often thousands of dollars, plus other fees, like taxes, licensing and document fees, on approved credit. Other pitches: The discount is only for a pricey, fully-loaded model; or the reduced price or discount offered might depend on qualifications like the buyer being a recent college graduate or having an account at a particular bank. “Only $99/Month” What may be missing: The advertised payments are temporary “teaser” payments. Payments for the rest of the loan term are much higher. A variation on this pitch: You will owe a balloon payment — usually thousands of dollars — at the end of the term. So both of these are what the FTC explicitly says are deceptive practices. Has the FTC taken action in cases similar to this? Yes, they have: “If auto dealers make advertising claims in headlines, they can’t take them away in fine print,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These actions show there is a financial cost for violating FTC orders.” In the case referenced above, the owners of a 20+ dealership chain was hit with about $250,000 in fines. If you think that's a tiny portion of the unethical gains they made from those ads in the time they were running, I'd say you were absolutely correct and that's little more than a \"\"cost of doing business\"\" for unscrupulous companies. But that's the state of the US nation at this time, and so we are left with \"\"caveat emptor\"\" as a guiding principle. What can you do about it? Competitors are technically allowed to file suit for deceptive business practices, so if you know any honest dealers in the area you can tip them off about it (try saying that out loud with a serious face). But even better, you can contact the FTC and file a formal complaint online. I wouldn't expect the world to change for your complaint, but even if it just generates a letter it may be enough to let a company know someone is watching - and if they are a big business, they might actually get into a little bit of trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cbd9dfe952f74b25dbcfbe52b673e532",
"text": "\"A day or so later I get an email from the mattress company where the rep informs me that they will need to issue me a paper check for the full amount and that I would have to contact Affirm to stop charging me. To which I rapidly answered \"\"Please confirm that with Affirm prior to mailing anything out. On my end the loan was cancelled.\"\" To which the rep replied \"\"confirmed. It has been cancelled.\"\" I think your communication could have been more explicit mentioning that not only was the loan cancelled, you got your initial payments. You have not paid for the mattress. The refund if any should go to Affirm. The Rep has only confirmed that loan has been cancelled. at what point, if any, am i free to use this money? I was planning to just let it sit there until the shoe drops and just returning. But for how long is too long? Sooner or later the error would get realized and you would have to pay this back.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55424864462f469b1beffbe1d39f8ba0",
"text": "\"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to). It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a \"\"hard pull\"\", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something \"\"in collections\"\". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will \"\"help build your credit\"\". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular \"\"consumer credit rating\"\", as there are \"\"consumer credit ratings\"\" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: \"\"Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f701d2150bdb4cf1031c23205676031e",
"text": "Note that this kind of entry on your credit record may also affect your ability to get a job. Basically, you're going on record as not honoring your commitments... and unless you have a darned good reason for having gotten into that situation and being completely unable to get back out, it's going to reflect on your general trustworthiness.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f2d7cb8ce82aa73b1882a63e63724e8",
"text": "\"Yea but they might feel swindled and that you pulled a fast one on them, and not be as willing to give you good deals in the future. Like, as a totally non mathematical example, they have a car for $50k. They lower the price to 40k with a financing that will bring total payment to 60k. Their break even on that car is let's say 45k. The financier cuts them a commission on expected profits, of maybe 7k? They made an expected 2k on the car. But if you pay it all off asap, they may lose that commission, be 5k in the hole on the sale, and pretty upset. Even more upset if they finance in house. So when you go back to buy another car they'll say \"\"fuck this guy, we need to recoup past lost profits, don't go below 4K above break even.\"\" I'm not really 100% on how financing workings when it comes to cars but from my background in sales this is the bar I would set for a customer that made me take a loss by doing business with them if they tried to come back in the future. This doesn't take into account how car dealerships don't own their inventory, finance all of their cars and actually ARE willing to take a loss on a car just to get it off the lot some times.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e24b171d757ef9cc138878484923fbde",
"text": "\"You promised to pay the loan if he didn't. That was a commitment, and I recommend \"\"owning\"\" your choice and following it through to its conclusion, even if you never do that again. TLDR: You made a mistake: own it, keep your word, and embrace the lesson. Why? Because you keep your promises. (Nevermind that this is a rare time where your answer will be directly recorded, in your credit report.) This isn't moralism. I see this as a \"\"defining moment\"\" in a long game: 10 years down the road I'd like you to be wise, confident and unafraid in financial matters, with a healthy (if distant) relationship with our somewhat corrupt financial system. I know austerity stinks, but having a strong financial life will bring you a lot more money in the long run. Many are leaping to the conclusions that this is an \"\"EX-friend\"\" who did this deliberately. Don't assume this. For instance, it's quite possible your friend sold the (car?) at a dealer, who failed to pay off this note, or did and the lender botched the paperwork. And when the collector called, he told them that, thinking the collector would fix it, which they don't do. The point is, you don't know: your friend may be an innocent party here. Creditors generally don't report late payments to the credit bureaus until they're 30 days late. But as a co-signer, you're in a bad spot: you're liable for the payments, but they don't send you a bill. So when you hear about it, it's already nearly 30 days late. You don't get any extra grace period as a co-signer. So you need to make a payment right away to keep that from going 30 late, or if it's already 30 late, to keep it from going any later. If it is later determined that it was not necessary for you to make those payments, the lender should give them back to you. A less reputable lender may resist, and you may have to threaten small claims court, which is a great expense to them. Cheaper to pay you. They say France is the nation of love. They say America is the nation of commerce. So it's not surprising that here, people are quick to burn a lasting friendship over a temporary financial issue. Just saying, that isn't necessarily the right answer. I don't know about you, but my friends all have warts. Nobody's perfect. Financial issues are just another kind of wart. And financial life in America is hard, because we let commerce run amok. And because our obsession with it makes it a \"\"loaded\"\" issue and thus hard to talk about. Perhaps your friend is in trouble but the actual villain is a predatory lender. Point is, the friendship may be more important than this temporary adversity. The right answer may be to come together and figure out how to make it work. Yes, it's also possible he's a human leech who hops from person to person, charming them into cosigning for him. But to assume that right out of the gate is a bit silly. The first question I'd ask is \"\"where's the car?\"\" (If it's a car). Many lenders, especially those who loan to poor credit risks, put trackers in the car. They can tell you where it is, or at least, where it was last seen when the tracker stopped working. If that is a car dealer's lot, for instance, that would be very informative. Simply reaching out to the lender may get things moving, if there's just a paperwork issue behind this. Many people deal with life troubles by fleeing: they dread picking up the phone, they fearfully throw summons in the trash. This is a terrifying and miserable way to deal with such a situation. They learn nothing, and it's pure suffering. I prefer and recommend the opposite: turn into it, deal with it head-on, get ahead of it. Ask questions, google things, read, become an expert on the thing. Be the one calling the lender, not the other way round. This way it becomes a technical learning experience that's interesting and fun for you, and the lender is dreading your calls instead of the other way 'round. I've been sued. It sucked. But I took it on boldly, and and actually led the fight and strategy (albeit with counsel). And turned it around so he wound up paying my legal bills. HA! With that precious experience, I know exactly what to do... I don't fear being sued, or if absolutely necessary, suing. You might as well get the best financial education. You're paying the tuition!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a29abe11d3792ac3fa82a44f4a5d3a09",
"text": "Here is an IRS citation to support my comment above - Exceptions. The 10% tax will not apply if distributions before age 59 ½ are made in any of the following circumstances: Made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the participant) on or after the death of the participant, Made because the participant has a qualifying disability, Made as part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments beginning after separation from service and made at least annually for the life or life expectancy of the participant or the joint lives or life expectancies of the participant and his or her designated beneficiary. (The payments under this exception, except in the case of death or disability, must continue for at least 5 years or until the employee reaches age 59½, whichever is the longer period.), Made to a participant after separation from service if the separation occurred during or after the calendar year in which the participant reached age 55, Made to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), Made to a participant for medical care up to the amount allowable as a medical expense deduction (determined without regard to whether the participant itemizes deductions), Timely made to reduce excess contributions, Timely made to reduce excess employee or matching employer contributions, Timely made to reduce excess elective deferrals, or Made because of an IRS levy on the plan. Made on account of certain disasters for which IRS relief has been granted.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e78d8946e188ca6502430581eae606dd
|
Can someone explain how government bonds work?
|
[
{
"docid": "f0963b264ba8f2c79655d1e78797cb36",
"text": "\"The short of it is that bonds are valued based on a fundamental concept of finance called the \"\"time value of money\"\". Stated simply, $100 one year from now is not the same as $100 now. If you had $100 now, you could use it to make more money and have more than $100 in a year. Conversely, if you didn't invest it, the $100 would not buy as much in a year as it would now, and so it would lose real value. Therefore, for these two benefits to be worth the same, the money received a year from now must be more than $100, in the amount of what you could make with $100 if you had it now, or at least the rate of inflation. Or, the amount received now could be less than the amount recieved a year from now, such that if you invested this lesser amount you'd expect to have $100 in a year. The simplest bonds simply pay their face value at maturity, and are sold for less than their face value, the difference being the cost to borrow the cash; \"\"interest\"\". These are called \"\"zero-coupon bonds\"\" and they're around, if maybe uncommon. The price people will pay for these bonds is their \"\"present value\"\", and the difference between the present value and face value determines a \"\"yield\"\"; a rate of return, similar to the interest rate on a CD. Now, zero-coupon bonds are uncommon because they cost a lot. If I buy a zero-coupon bond, I'm basically tying up my money until maturity; I see nothing until the full bond is paid. As such, I would expect the bond issuer to sell me the bond at a rate that makes it worth my while to keep the money tied up. So basically, the bond issuer is paying me compound interest on the loan. The future value of an investment now at a given rate is given by FV = PV(1+r)t. To gain $1 million in new cash today, and pay a 5% yield over 10 years, a company or municipality would have to issue $1.629 million in bonds. You see the effects of the compounding there; the company is paying 5% a year on the principal each year, plus 5% of each 5% already accrued, adding up to an additional 12% of the principal owed as interest. Instead, bond issuers can offer a \"\"coupon bond\"\". A coupon bond has a coupon rate, which is a percentage of the face value of the bond that is paid periodically (often annually, sometimes semi-annually or even quarterly). A coupon rate helps a company in two ways. First, the calculation is very straightforward; if you need a million dollars and are willing to pay 5% over 10 years, then that's exactly how you issue the bonds; $1million worth with a 5% coupon rate and a maturity date 10 years out. A $100 5% coupon bond with a 10-year maturity, if sold at face value, would cost only $150 over its lifetime, making the total cost of capital only 50% of the principal instead of 62%. Now, that sounds like a bad deal; if the company's paying less, then you're getting less, right? Well yes, but you also get money sooner. Remember the fundamental principle here; money now is worth more than money later, because of what you can do with money between now and later. You do realize a lower overall yield from this investment, but you get returns from it quickly which you can turn around and reinvest to make more money. As such, you're usually willing to tolerate a lower rate of return, because of the faster turnaround and thus the higher present value. The \"\"Income Yield %\"\" from your table is also referred to as the \"\"Flat Yield\"\". It is a very crude measure, a simple function of the coupon rate, the current quote price and the face value (R/P * V). For the first bond in your list, the flat yield is (.04/114.63 * 100) = 3.4895%. This is a very simple measure that is roughly analogous to what you would expect to make on the bond if you held it for one year, collected the coupon payment, and then sold the bond for the same price; you'd earn one coupon payment at the end of that year and then recoup the principal. The actual present value calculation for a period of 1 year is PV = FV/(1+r), which rearranges to r = FV/PV - 1; plug in the values (present value 114.63, future value 118.63) and you get exactly the same result. This is crude and inaccurate because in one year, the bond will be a year closer to maturity and will return one less coupon payment; therefore at the same rate of return the present value of the remaining payout of the bond will only be $110.99 (which makes a lot of sense if you think about it; the bond will only pay out $112 if you bought it a year from now, so why would you pay $114 for it?). Another measure, not seen in the list, is the \"\"simple APY\"\". Quite simply, it is the yield that will be realized from all cash flows from the bond (all coupon payments plus the face value of the bond), as if all those cash flows happened at maturity. This is calculated using the future value formula: FV = PV (1+r/n)nt, where FV is the future value (the sum of the face value and all coupon payments to be made before maturity), PV is present value (the current purchase price), r is the annual rate (which we're solving for), n is the number of times interest accrues and/or is paid (for an annual coupon that's 1), and t is the number of years to maturity. For the first bond in the list, the simple APY is 0.2974%. This is the effective compound interest rate you would realize if you bought the bond and then took all the returns and stuffed them in a mattress until maturity. Since nobody does this with investment returns, it's not very useful, but it can be used to compare the yield on a zero-coupon bond to the yield on a coupon bond if you treated both the same way, or to compare a coupon bond to a CD or other compound-interest-bearing account that you planned to buy into and not touch for its lifetime. The Yield to Maturity, which IS seen, is the true yield percentage of the bond in time-valued terms, assuming you buy the bond now, hold it to maturity and all coupon payments are made on time and reinvested at a similar yield. This calculation is based on the simple APY, but takes into account the fact that most of the coupon payments will be made prior to maturity; the present value of these will be higher because they happen sooner. The YTM is calculated by summing the present values of all payments based on when they'll occur; so, you'll get one $4 payment a year from now, then another $4 in two years, then $4 in 3 years, and $104 at maturity. The present value of each of those payments is calculated by flipping around the future value formula: PV = FV/(1+r)t. The present value of the entire bond (its current price) is the sum of the present value of each payment: 114.63 = 4/(1+r) + 4/(1+r)2 + 4/(1+r)3 + 104/(1+r)4. You now have to solve for r, which is difficult to isolate; the easiest way to find the rate with a computer is to \"\"goal seek\"\" (intelligently guess and check). Based on the formula above, I calculated a YTM of .314% for the first bond if you bought on Sept 7, 2012 (and thus missed the upcoming coupon payment). Buying today, you'd also be entitled to about 5 weeks' worth of the coupon payment that is due on Sept 07 2012, which is close enough to the present day that the discounted value is a rounding error, putting the YTM of the bond right at .40%. This is the rate of return you'll get off of your investment if you are able to take all the returns from it, when you receive them, and reinvest them at a similar rate (similar to having a savings account at that rate, or being able to buy fractional shares of a mutual fund giving you that rate).\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9cbde01cf5e466b8f1a6ee6fca714dfb",
"text": "US government bonds are where money goes when the markets are turbulent and investors are fleeing from risk, and that applies even if the risk is a downgrade of the US credit rating, because there's simply nowhere else to put your money if you're in search of safety. Most AAA-rated governments have good credit ratings because they don't borrow much money (and most of them also have fairly small economies compared with the US), meaning that there's poor liquidity in their scarce bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7640decc4162cbf62a036df0c7c0f259",
"text": "weird holdover from the bad old days when you had to do arithmetic by hand I would guess. Stocks used to trade in 1/8ths, so bonds trading in even smaller increments makes sense. Also (and I am unsure if this is still true) U.S. bonds trade on a 360 day year (or used to anyway) for the same reason... 360 divides well into months and quarters (for easier math) whereas 365 is considerably harder. Most of the world now trades in decimals and 365/365 years so I am unsure why the U.S. doesn't. Institutional inertia I would guess.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "457f7cbe868254966c2234c7c5f53d4b",
"text": "230 government agencies by law have to buy treasury bonds with their excess cash. Those agencies hold 30% of the debt. The rest is by anyone else who purchased bonds on the open market when the treasury sold them. Are you fucking stupid? You think the government just printed 20 trillion dollars with nothing to back it? No hedge funds bought them. China, Japan, Britain, bought them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41d2b73e1ee4366764534c224b142964",
"text": "\"Other than the inconvienent fact that Treasury cannot sell to the Fed by law your theory is nice. You forget the step where the open market buys from the Treasury since they desire bonds to invest in, and the Fed can buy only from the open market. Secondly, the Fed does not give cash to the Treasury. The mint (a branch of the Treasury, not the Fed) prints cash. So it seems your understanding of how the money system works is quite wrong, yet since this is the Economy subreddit instead of the Economics subreddit, I expect you to get upvotes for saying what is popular even though it is laughably incorrect. You seem to not like cash that was not \"\"even existing previously\"\". All cash was not existing previously. How do you expect people to make transactions? Barter? You call them interest free loans (but above claimed they will never be paid back?), but then the Fed is making a profit on them? It seems you contradict yourself with all that handwaving. It would be interesting for you to explain how (and why) money (not cash) gets added and removed to the economy. Yay for ignorance!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac77f8c7aa0bad42c502a881f02849db",
"text": "If the government defaults on its debt, the holders of the debt get hung out to dry. You'll personally still owe just what you owed before, but the risk profile for the lender just shot up through the roof if the debt they hold is government-backed.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5aa09a29c3eb958e01d55785c5b28c25",
"text": "no it would not. Did you read the article? corporations and funds are already paying the government to hold money short-term (negative real 2 year bond yields). or are you advocating that the government place an additional tax on people who buy government bonds?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3bae8e3b801de953c6ba778740f8d5c",
"text": "\"you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market. http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk. There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large. But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as \"\"currency\"\" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "25cf528cb594ac69f21ac7cc0cf0ab5d",
"text": "The assumption that bonds have been issued with a negative coupon is not correct, or at least is has not occurred thus far. We'll look at this future possibility in the final paragraph. For now, lets look at the current bond market. The issuance of government bonds which carry a negative gross redemption yield is the result of governments issuing bonds at an issue price which exceed the nominal/redemption price and any coupon yield receivable over the life of the bond. I can find no instances of bonds with a negative coupon, though many have tiny positive coupon yields. The short seller of a bond with a negative gross redemption yield will be liable to pay the buyer the interest amount determined by the coupon. If the short seller has borrowed the bonds in order to sell them, then the short seller will receive the interest due from the lender to offset the interest paid to the buyer. If the short seller has not borrowed the bonds, but has sold them using some sort of synthetic contract such as a Contract for Difference, then the short seller will pay the coupon without receiving any offsetting payment. I thought this was an interesting question and it will be interesting to see if, at some time in the future, governments do ever issue bonds with a negative coupon. To date, this does not appear to have happened. So what would happen if we assume that a government issues a bond with a negative coupon. The buyer of the bond would be required to pay the equivalent yield to the government according to the bond contract specification. If an investor sells short such a bond, they would then become entitled to receive the interest from the buyer. If they have borrowed the bonds in order to sell them short, then they would pay any interest received back to the lender - this chain should eventually end with the ultimate owner/lender paying the government their dues. If they have sold short using a synthetic contract, then presumably they would keep the interest from themselves.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afcfaa3930781982e106f63f9e89ae04",
"text": "Why can't the Fed simply bid more than the bond's maturity value to lower interest rates below zero? The FED could do this but then it would have to buy all the bonds in the market since all other market participants would not be willing to lend money to the government only to receive less money back in the future. Not everyone has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars :)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "13ede27f0c9b40ca18f3c17d00ab7071",
"text": "Without getting to hung-up on terminology here, the management of a company will often attempt to keep stock prices high because of a number of reasons: Ideally companies keep prices up through performance. In some cases, you'll see companies do other things spending cash and/or issuing bonds to continue to pay dividends (e.g. IBM), or spending cash and/or issuing bonds to pay for stock buybacks (e.g. IBM). These methods can work for a time but are not sustainable and will often be seen as acts of desperation. Companies that have a solid plan for growth will typically not do much of anything to directly change stock prices. Bonds are a bit different because they have a fairly straight-forward valuation model based on the fact that they pay out a fixed amount per month. The two main reason prices in bonds go down are: The key here is that bonds pay out the same thing per month regardless of their price or the price of other bonds available. Most stocks do not pay any dividend and for much of those that do, the main factor as to whether you make or lose money on them is the stock price. The price of bonds does matter to governments, however. Let's say a country successfully issued some 10 year bonds last year at the price of 1000. They pay 1% per month (to keep the math simple.) Every month, they pay out $10 per bond. Then some (stupid) politicians start threatening to default on bond payments. The bond market freaks and people start trying to unload these bonds as fast as they can. The going price drops to $500. Next month, the payments are the same. The coupon rate on the bonds has not changed at all. I'm oversimplifying here but this is the core of how bond prices work. You might be tempted to think that doesn't matter to the country but it does. Now, this same country wants to issue some more bonds. It wants to get that 1% rate again but it can't. Why would anyone pay $1000 for a 1% (per month) bond when they can get the exact same bond with (basically) the same risks for $500? Instead they have to offer a 2% (per month) rate in order to match the market price. A government (or company) could in fact put money into the bond market to bolster the price of it's bonds (i.e. keep the rates down.) The problem is that if you are issuing bonds, it's generally (caveats apply) because you need cash that you don't have so what money are you going to use to buy these bonds? Or in other words, it doesn't make sense to issue bonds and then simply plow the cash gained from that issuance back into the same bonds you are issuing. The options here are a bit more limited. I have to mention though that the US government (via a quasi-governmental entity) did actually buy it's own bonds. This policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) was done for more complicated reasons than simply keeping the price of bonds up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba635a0e2132b69b629c4d6de7a2b27b",
"text": "Bond prices move inversely to their yields. So when you sell bonds and create a supply side deluge, bond prices will fall. Since bond prices are falling, yields go up. (The dollar amount that the bond pays out is the same. It's simply that since the bond price has fallen, that dollar amount paid out expressed in percentage terms of the bond price has risen).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7678d76e4983abfebdf8c18da0f8280e",
"text": "The only reason I can think of is that the bonds are bought automatically by some investment pools, groups or institutions. That will stop very quickly once the management finds some other place to put the money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d8b964c197b4e88844b037810b8339df",
"text": "There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work: * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value. * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds. * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market. Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop. * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b4ac6d21b3e809e741841ba81cd1cf1",
"text": "This article is 100% incorrect. The governments main concern is to PREVENT depositors and tax payers from losing funds in the case of bank default. How? By having debt holders being forced to converted into equity to create a capital buffer to keep a bank solvent which will help protect depositors and prevent tax payers from having to bail the banks out. Please ask me more questions on this as I have done a lot of work on this topic as of late.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6f22cd2659dc30cc6bfd0b4264018d8",
"text": "Tbonds are on nobody's books when they are bought back. Feds or Treasury department credits your account plus any interests when you sell the bonds back to them. The Tbonds are then destroyed. The govt is forever solvent when paying Tbonds. They just click a few buttons and bam!! A check is written to you or your checking account is increased for turning in the matured bonds.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
9937348b7dd1bfbc3e0ae4fac2eca1e3
|
How should I handle student loans when leaving University and trying to buy a house?
|
[
{
"docid": "ad0028567b8dc2822bbcb30238ef587a",
"text": "\"Concise answers to your questions: Depends on the loan and the bank; when you \"\"accelerate\"\" repayment of a loan by applying a pre-payment balance to the principal, your monthly payment may be reduced. However, standard practice for most loan types is that the repayment schedule will be accelerated; you'll pay no less each month, but you'll pay it off sooner. I can neither confirm nor deny that an internship counts as job experience in the field for the purpose of mortgage lending. It sounds logical, especially if it were a paid internship (in which case you'd just call it a \"\"job\"\"), but I can't be sure as I don't know of anyone who got a mortgage without accruing the necessary job experience post-graduation. A loan officer will be happy to talk to you and answer specific questions, but if you go in today, with no credit history (the student loan probably hasn't even entered repayment) and a lot of unknowns (an offer can be rescinded, for instance), you are virtually certain to be denied a mortgage. The bank is going to want evidence that you will make good on the debt you have over time. One $10,000 payment on the loan, though significant, is just one payment as far as your credit history (and credit score) is concerned. Now, a few more reality checks: $70k/yr is not what you'll be bringing home. As a single person without dependents, you'll be taxed at the highest possible withholdings rate. Your effective tax rate on $70k, depending on the state in which you live, can be as high as 30% (including all payroll/SS taxes, for a 1099 earner and/or an employee in a state with an income tax), so you're actually only bringing home 42k/yr, or about $1,600/paycheck if you're paid biweekly. To that, add a decent chunk for your group healthcare plan (which, as of 2014, you will be required to buy, or else pay another $2500 - effectively another 3% of gross earnings - in taxes). And even now with your first job, you should be at least trying to save up a decent chunk o' change in a 401k or IRA as a retirement nest egg. That student loan, beginning about 6 months after you leave school, will cost you about $555/mo in monthly payments for the next 10 years (if it's all Stafford loans with a 50/50 split between sub/unsub; that could be as much as $600/mo for all-unsub Stafford, or $700 or more for private loans). If you were going to pay all that back in two years, you're looking at paying a ballpark of $2500/mo leaving just $700 to pay all your bills and expenses each month. With a 3-year payoff plan, you're turning around one of your two paychecks every month to the student loan servicer, which for a bachelor is doable but still rather tight. Your mortgage payment isn't the only payment you will make on your house. If you get an FHA loan with 3.5% down, the lender will demand PMI. The city/county will likely levy a property tax on the assessed value of land and building. The lender may require that you purchase home insurance with minimum acceptable coverage limits and deductibles. All of these will be paid into escrow accounts, managed by your lending bank, from a single check you send them monthly. I pay all of these, in a state (Texas) that gets its primary income from sales and property tax instead of income, and my monthly payment isn't quite double the simple P&I. Once you have the house, you'll want to fill the house. Nice bed: probably $1500 between mattress and frame for a nice big queen you can stretch out on (and have lady friends over). Nice couch: $1000. TV: call it $500. That's probably the bare minimum you'll want to buy to replace what you lived through college with (you'll have somewhere to eat and sleep other than the floor of your new home), and we're already talking almost a month's salary, or payments of up to 10% of your monthly take-home pay over a year on a couple of store credit cards. Plates, cookware, etc just keeps bumping this up. Yes, they're (theoretically) all one-time costs, but they're things you need, and things you may not have if you've been living in dorms and eating in dining halls all through college. The house you buy now is likely to be a \"\"starter\"\", maybe 3bed/2bath and 1600 sqft at the upper end (they sell em as small as 2bd/1bt 1100sqft). It will support a spouse and 2 kids, but by that point you'll be bursting at the seams. What happens if your future spouse had the same idea of buying a house early while rates were low? The cost of buying a house may be as little as 3.5% down and a few hundred more in advance escrow and a couple other fees the seller can't pay for you. The cost of selling the same house is likely to include all the costs you made the seller pay when you bought it, because you'll be selling to someone in the same position you're in now. I didn't know it at the time I bought my house, but I paid about $5,000 to get into it (3.5% down and 6 months' escrow up front), while the sellers paid over $10,000 to get out (the owner got married to another homeowner, and they ended up selling both houses to move out of town; I don't even know what kind of bath they took on the house we weren't involved with). I graduated in 2005. I didn't buy my first house until I was married and pretty much well-settled, in 2011 (and yes, we were looking because mortgage rates were at rock bottom). We really lucked out in terms of a home that, if we want to or have to, we can live in for the rest of our lives (only 1700sqft, but it's officially a 4/2 with a spare room, and a downstairs master suite and nursery/office, so when we're old and decrepit we can pretty much live downstairs). I would seriously recommend that you do the same, even if by doing so you miss out on the absolute best interest rates. Last example: let's say, hypothetically, that you bite at current interest rates, and lock in a rate just above prime at 4%, 3.5% down, seller pays closing, but then in two years you get married, change jobs and have to move. Let's further suppose an alternate reality in which, after two years of living in an apartment, all the same life changes happen and you are now shopping for your first house having been pre-approved at 5%. That one percentage point savings by buying now, on a house in the $200k range, is worth about $120/mo or about $1440/yr off of your P&I payment ($921.42 on a $200,000 home with a 30-year term). Not chump change (over 30 years if you had been that lucky, it's $43000), but it's less than 5% of your take-home pay (month-to-month or annually). However, when you move in two years, the buyer's probably going to want the same deal you got - seller pays closing - because that's the market level you bought in to (low-priced starters for first-time homebuyers). That's a 3% commission for both agents, 1% origination, 0.5%-1% guarantor, and various fixed fees (title etc). Assuming the value of the house hasn't changed, let's call total selling costs 8% of the house value of $200k (which is probably low); that's $16,000 in seller's costs. Again, assuming home value didn't change and that you got an FHA loan requiring only 3.5% down, your down payment ($7k) plus principal paid (about another $7k; 6936.27 to be exact) only covers $14k of those costs. You're now in the hole $2,000, and you still have to come up with your next home's down payment. With all other things being equal, in order to get back to where you were in net worth terms before you bought the house (meaning $7,000 cash in the bank after selling it), you would need to stay in the house for 4 and a half years to accumulate the $16,000 in equity through principal payments. That leaves you with your original $7,000 down payment returned to you in cash, and you're even in accounting terms (which means in finance terms you're behind; that $7,000 invested at 3% historical average rate of inflation would have earned you about $800 in those four years, meaning you need to stick around about 5.5 years before you \"\"break even\"\" in TVM terms). For this reason, I would say that you should be very cautious when buying your first home; it may very well be the last one you'll ever buy. Whether that's because you made good choices or bad is up to you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e634ebc5b8d5a558812184dc3afaf7cd",
"text": "One way to reduce the monthly payment due each month is to do everything to eliminate one of the loans. Make the minimum payment to the others, but put everything into eliminating one of the loans. Of course this assumes that you have separate loans for each year of school. Make sure that in trying to get aggressive on the loan repayment that you don't neglect the saving for a down payment. Each dollar you can put down will save you money on the mortgage. It might also allow you to reduce the mortgage insurance payments. If you pay one student loan back aggressively but can't eliminate it you might be worse off because you spent your savings but it didn't help you qualify for the mortgage. One way to maximize the impact is to not make the extra payments until you are ready to apply for the mortgage. Ask the lender if you qualify with all the student loans, or if you need to eliminate one. If you don't need to eliminate a loan, then apply the extra funds to a larger down payment or pay points to reduce the interest rate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "348332ebd12750fb19b0752caded06c2",
"text": "\"If I were you I would pay off these loans today. Here are the reasons why I would do this: Car Loan For car loans in particular, it's much better to not pay interest on a loan since cars lose value over time. So the longer you hold the debt, the more you end up paying in interest as the car continues to lose value. This is really the opposite of what you want to do in order to build wealth, which is to acquire assets that gain value over time. I would also recommend that once you pay the loan, that you set aside the payment you used to make on the loan as savings for your next car. That way, you will be able to pay cash for your next car, avoiding thousands of dollars of interest. You will also be able to negotiate a better price by paying cash. Just by doing this you will be able to either afford to buy a nicer car with the same amount of money, or to put the extra money toward something else. Student Loan For the student loan, 3% is a very low rate historically. However, the reason I would still pay these off is that the \"\"return\"\" you are getting by doing so is completely risk free. You can't often get this type of return from a risk-free investment instrument, and putting money in the stock market carries risk. So to me, this is an \"\"easy\"\" way to get a guaranteed return on your money. The only reason I might not pay this down immediately is if you have any other debt at a rate higher than 3%. General Reasons to Get out of Debt Overall, one of the basic functions of lifetime financial planning is to convert income into assets that produce cash flow. This is the reason that you save for retirement and a house, so that when your income ends when you're older these assets will produce cash, or in the case of the house, that you will no longer have to make rent payments. Similarly, paying off these debts creates cash flow, as you no longer have to make these payments. It also reduces your overall financial risk, as you'd need less money to live on if you lost your job or had a similar emergency (you can probably reduce your emergency fund a bit too). Discharging these loans will also improve your debt-to-income ratio if you are thinking of buying a house soon. I wonder whether as someone who's responsible with money, the prospect of cutting two large checks feels like \"\"big spending\"\" to you, even though it's really a prudent thing to do and will save you money. However, if you do pay these off, I don't think you'll regret it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "15f8ac47cd161d2a2b55ed104b4c581f",
"text": "The biggest red flag is the fact that your parents may lose their house. There are multiple parts of the decision. The red flag comes in because you are stretching your finances to the max to afford the house you are interested in. Buying down the interest rate makes some sense depending on how long you plan on staying, but not a a way to afford house X. Of course a bigger down payment will also influence the size of the house. You are also buying something in case your parents need a place to live. What happens if that never occurs? You now have something bigger than you need. You are mixing investments and housing. There is no guarantee that you will even break-even on the house as a investment. It can take several years to make back the closing costs involved in buying and selling a house, based solely on stable price and your monthly payments. If the price drops you might never make the money back. You might be better off renting what you need now or waiting until the current house is lost and then renting what you need then.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3efd6b04f4c411da91108e1ba6a83ead",
"text": "\"Debt cripples you, it weighs you down and keeps you from living your life the way you want. Debt prevents you from accomplishing your goals, limits your ability to \"\"Do\"\" what you want, \"\"Have\"\" what you want, and \"\"Be\"\" who you want to be, it constricts your opportunities, and constrains your charity. As you said, Graduated in May from school. Student loans are coming due here in January. Bought a new car recently. The added monthly expenses have me concerned that I am budgeting my money correctly. Awesome! Congratulations. You need to develop a plan to repay the student loans. Buying a (new) car before you have planned you budget may have been premature. I currently am spending around 45-50% of my monthly (net)income to cover all my expenses and living. The left over is pretty discretionary, but things like eating dinner outside the house and expenses that are abnormal would come out of this. My question is what percentage is a safe amount to be committing to expenses on a monthly basis? Great! Plan 40-50% for essentials, and decide to spend under 20-30% for lifestyle. Be frugal here and you could allocate 30-40% for financial priorities. Budget - create a budget divided into three broad categories, control your spending and your life. Goals - a Goal is a dream with a plan. Organize your goals into specific items with timelines, and steps to progress to your goals. You should have three classes of goals, what you want to \"\"Have\"\", what you want to \"\"Do\"\", and who you want to \"\"Be\"\"; Ask yourself, what is important to you. Then establish a timeline to achieve each goal. You should place specific goals or steps into three time blocks, Near (under 3-6 months), medium (under 12 months), and Long (under 24 months). It is ok to have longer term plans, but establish steps to get to those goals, and place those steps under one of these three timeframes. Example, Good advice I have heard includes keeping housing costs under 25%, keeping vehicle costs under 10%, and paying off debt quickly. Some advise 10-20% for financial priorities, but I prefer 30-40%. If you put 10% toward retirement (for now), save 10-20%, and pay 10-20% toward debt, you should make good progress on your student loans.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ab7a895569eedf19577c89144cf4853",
"text": "\"I think you're right that from a pure \"\"expected future value\"\" perspective, it makes sense to pay this loan off as quickly as possible (including not taking the next year's loan). The new student loans with the higher interest rates have changed the balance enough that it's no longer automatically better to keep it going as long as possible. The crucial point in your case, which isn't true for many people, is that you will likely have to pay it off eventually anyway and so in terms of net costs over your lifetime you will do best by paying it off quickly. A few points to set against that, that you might want to consider: Not paying it off is a good hedge against your career not going as well as you expect, e.g. if the economy does badly, you have health problems, you take a career break for any reason. If that happens, you would end up not being forced to pay it off, so will end up gaining from not having done so voluntarily. The money you save in that case could be more valuable to you that the money you would lose if your career does go well. Not paying it off will increase your net cash earlier in life when you are more likely to need it, e.g. for a house deposit. Having more free cash could increase your options, making it possible to buy a house earlier in life. Or it could mean you have a higher deposit when you do buy, reducing the interest rate on the entire mortgage balance. The savings from that could end up being more than the 6% interest on the loan even though when you look at the loan in isolation it seems like a very bad rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8394b41dc5e16d17c616139c687e014c",
"text": "If it is US, you need to take tax implications into account. Profit taken from sale of your home is taxable. One approach would be to take the tax hit, pay down the student loans, rent, and focus any extra that you can on paying off the student loans quickly. The tax is on realized gains when you sell the property. I think that any equity under the original purchase price is taxed at a lower rate (or zero). Consult a tax pro in your area. Do not blindly assume buying is better than renting. Run the numbers. Rent Vs buy is not a question with a single answer. It depends greatly on the real estate market where you are, and to a lesser extent on your personal situation. Be sure to include maintenance and HOA fees, if any, on the ownership side. Breakeven time on a new roof or a new HVAC unit or an HOA assessment can be years, tipping the scales towards renting. Include the opportunity cost by including the rate of return on the 100k on the renting side (or subtracting it on the ownership side). Be sure to include the tax implications on the ownership side, especially taxes on any profits from the sale. If the numbers say ownership in your area is better, then try for as small of a mortgage as you can get in a growing area. Assuming that the numbers add up to buying: buy small and live frugally, focus on increasing discretionary spending, and using it to pay down debt and then build wealth. If they add up to renting, same thing but rent small.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6c3d4c6665da2f9ba58598c819e7094d",
"text": "I'm assuming that when you sell the house you expect to be able to pay off these loans. In that case you need a loan that can be paid off in full without penalty, but has as low an interest rate as possible. My suggestions:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbb1a5aaa7bc8c7f62db10fa77815473",
"text": "Based on your numbers, it sounds like you've got 12 years left in the private student loan, which just seems to be an annoyance to me. You have the cash to pay it off, but that may not be the optimal solution. You've got $85k in cash! That's way too much. So your options are: -Invest 40k -Pay 2.25% loan off -Prepay mortgage 40k Play around with this link: mortgage calculator Paying the student loan, and applying the $315 to the monthly mortgage reduces your mortgage by 8 years. It also reduces the nag factor of the student loan. Prepaying the mortgage (one time) reduces it by 6 years. (But, that reduces the total cost of the mortgage over it's lifetime the most) Prepaying the mortgage and re-amortizing it over thirty years (at the same rate) reduces your mortgage payment by $210, which you could apply to the student loan, but you'd need to come up with an extra $105 a month.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c59b0cebec63a91223960ef08c299029",
"text": "A lender will look at three things when giving a loan: Income. Do you make enough money each month to afford the payments. They will subtract from your income any other loans, credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage. They will also figure in your housing costs. Your Collateral. For a mortgage the collateral is the house, for a car loan it is the car. They will only give you a loan to a specific percentage of the value of the collateral. Your money in the bank isn't collateral, but it can serve as a down payment on the loan. Your Credit score. This is a measure of how well you handle credit. The longer the history the better. Using credit wisely is better than not using the credit you have. If you don't have a credit card, get one. Start with your current bank. You have a history with them. If they won't help you join a credit union. Another source of car loans is the auto dealer. Though their rates can be high. Make sure that the purchase price doesn't require a monthly payment too high for your income. Good rules of thumb for monthly payments are 25% for housing and 10% for all other loans combined. Even a person with perfect credit can't get a loan for more than the bank thinks they can afford. Note: Don't drain all your savings, you will need it to pay for the unexpected expenses in life. You might think you have enough cash to pay off the student loan or to make a big down payment, but you don't want to stretch yourself too thin.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8700cf158da8042aaddd73f9043e4aef",
"text": "\"This election only applies to payments that you make within 120 days of your having received loan money. These wouldn't be required payments, which is why they are called \"\"early\"\" payments. For example, let's say that you've just received $10,000 from your lender for a new loan. One month later, you pay $500 back. This election decides how that $500 will be applied. The first choice, \"\"Apply as Refund,\"\" means that you are essentially returning some of the money that you initially borrowed. It's like you never borrowed it. Instead of a $10,000 loan, it is now a $9,500 loan. The accrued interest will be recalculated for the new loan amount. The second choice, \"\"Apply as Payment,\"\" means that your payment will first be applied to any interest that has accrued, then applied to the principal. While you are in school, you don't need to make payments on student loans. However, interest is accruing from the day you get the money. This interest is simple interest, which means that the interest is only based on the loan principal; the interest is not compounding, and you are not paying interest on interest. After you leave school and your grace period expires, you enter repayment, and you have to start making payments. At this point, all the interest that has accrued from the time you first received the money until now is capitalized. This means that the interest is added to your loan principal, and interest will now be calculated on this new, larger amount. To avoid this, you can pay the interest as you go before it is capitalized, which will save you from having to pay even more interest later on. As to which method is better, just as they told you right on the form, the \"\"Apply as Refund\"\" method will save you the most money in the long run. However, as I said at the beginning, this election only applies if you make a payment within 120 days from receiving loan funds. Since you are already out of school and in repayment, I don't think it matters at all what you select here. For any students reading this and thinking about loans, I want to issue a warning. Student loans can ruin people later in life. If you truly feel that taking out a loan is the only way you'll be able to get the education you need, minimize these as much as possible. Borrow as little as possible, pay as much as you can as early as you can, and plan on knocking these out ASAP. Great Lakes has a few pages that discuss these topics:\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5bc3cebe3c03ba3cac29b797150cbcd6",
"text": "\"I think there are two questions here: (a) Is it better to continue living with your parents while you save up for a bigger down payment on a house, or to move out as soon as possible? (b) Is it better to pay off a student loan and make a smaller down payment on the house, or to keep paying on the student loan and use the cash for a larger down payment on the house? Regarding (a), this is mostly a personal priorities question. You don't say if you're paying your parents anything, but even if you are, it's likely a lot less than the cost of your buying your own home. It is almost certainly ECONOMICALLY better to stay with your parents. But do you like living with your parents, and do they like having you around? Or are they pushing you to move out? Are you fighting with them regularly? Do you just like the idea of being more independent? If you'd prefer to have your own place, how important is it to you? Is it worth the additional cost? These are questions only you can answer. Regarding (b), you need to compare the cost of the student loan and the mortgage loan. Start with the interest rates of each. For the mortgage loan, if your down payment is below a certain threshold -- 20% last time I bought a house -- you have to pay for the lender's mortgage insurance, so add that in if applicable. If you are paying \"\"points\"\" to get a reduced interest rate, factor that in too. Then whichever is more expensive, that's the one that you want to make smaller. If one or both are variable rate loans (well, you say the student loan is fixed), than you have to guess what the rates might be in the future.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4dba527ceeb1a824675dbc76b6a6cc12",
"text": "\"Let me run some simplistic numbers, ignoring inflation. You have the opportunity to borrow up to 51K. What matters (and varies) is your postgraduation salary. Case 1 - you make 22K after graduation. You pay back 90 a year for 30 years, paying off at most 2700 of the loan. In this case, whether you borrow 2,800 or 28,000 makes no difference to the paying-off. You would do best to borrow as much as you possibly can, treating it as a grant. Case 2 - you make 100K after graduation. You pay back over 7K a year. If you borrowed the full 51, after 7 or 8 years it would be paid off (yeah, yeah, inflation, interest, but maybe that might make it 9 years.) In this case, the more you borrow the more you have to pay back, but you can easily pay it back, so you don't care. Invest your sponsorships and savings into something long term since you know you won't be needing to draw on them. Case 3 - you make 30K after graduation. Here, the payments you have to make actually impact how much disposable income you have. You pay back 810 a year, and over 30 years that's about 25K of principal. It will be less if you account for some (even most) of the payment going to interest, not principal. Anything you borrow above 25K (or the lower, more accurate amount) is \"\"free\"\". If you borrow substantially less than that (by using your sponsorship, savings, and summer job) you may be able to stop paying sooner than 30 years. But even if you borrow only 12K (or half the more accurate number), it will still be 15 years of payments. Running slightly more realistic versions of these calculations where your salary goes up, and you take interest into account, I think you will discover, for each possible salary path, a number that represents how much of your loan is really loan: everything above that is actually a grant you do not pay back. The less you are likely to make, the more of it is really grant. On top of that, it seems to me that no matter the loan/grant ratio, \"\"borrow as much as you can from this rather bizarre source\"\" appears to be the correct answer. In the cases where it's all loan, you have a lot of income and don't care much about this loan payment. Borrowing the whole 51K lets you invest all the money you get while you're a student, and you can use the returns on those investments to make the loan payments.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "33d099c8da7f15157ff66e6ab94e8a96",
"text": "My in-laws are pressuring me to buy a home. I don't really have much financial experience. In fact, I'm a nightmare with finances. I almost have my student loans payed off from school. My in-laws and husband are great with finances and with real-estate. My husband has a good job and $200k in savings. I have a good job too, and still have some debt from school. (approx $60k left of 180k). They say the house will be available in Jan or February for purchase, and that we should really try to buy it (prob $2-3 mil). My guess is they want to make it available to us off the market (which is a huge benefit in this area, there are really no houses available lately) . The problem is: I am uncomfortable because I don't have all of my loans payed off, I could divert money away from paying off the loans in order to save for a larger downpayment. I just got a bonus of $35k (after taxes) I don't think I'll have all of my loans payed off by January. Should I save my money for the downpayment or focus on my loans, should I go for the house? I don't know how to weigh these options against each other with such little experience.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "51866e5ddfe886708561f21f4af9113d",
"text": "Tl;dr by anecdata I paid for my master's degree from investments/savings with a HELOC backstop It appears you don't have the 62k cash needed for tuition and living expenses so your decision is between financing a degree by selling your investments or a loan. Ultimately this comes down to the yes/no sell decision on the investments. Some things to consider:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9bcc0c9036c690555368b96512ef7ed8",
"text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "34bde35f3d87d48efcb701b18a66256f",
"text": "Yes. You got it right. If BBY has issues and drops to say, $20, as the put buyer, I force you to take my 100 shares for $2800, but they are worth $2000, and you lost $800 for the sake of making $28. The truth is, the commissions also wipe out the motive for trades like yours, even a $5 cost is $10 out of the $28 you are trying to pocket. You may 'win' 10 of these trades in a row, then one bad one wipes you out.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3aeb66422333821e20270238fcaf5c1a
|
How is the time-premium on PUT options calculated
|
[
{
"docid": "c9a98d7927e125f4b8fad5386a9e4ff5",
"text": "I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e1c1d248918ff767562b5549d2a3218",
"text": "\"According to Yahoo, AAPL was trading at $113.26 at 1:10 PM on 11/13/15, which is the approximate time of your option quote. You provided a quote for AAPL at 4:15, and the stock happened to keep going down most of the that afternoon. To make a sensible comparison, you need to take contemporary prices on both the stock and the option. The quote on the option also shows the \"\"price\"\" being outside of the bid-ask range, which suggests that the option was trading thinly and that the last price occurred sometime earlier in the day. If you use a price in the bid-ask range ($21.90-$22.30) and use the price of AAPL at the time of the put quote, you'll come up with a price that's much closer to your expectation.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "02b333afdcebbf23ab44336b569546c4",
"text": "The mathematics make it easier to understand why this is the case. Using very bad shorthand, d1 and d2 are inputs into N(), and N() can be expressed as the probability of the expected value or the most probable value which in this case is the discounted expected stock price at expiration. d1 has two σs which is volatility in the numerator and one in the denominator. Cancelling leaves one on top. Calculating when it's infinity gives an N() of 1 for S and 0 for K, so the call is worth S and the put PV(K). At 0 for σ, it's the opposite. More concise is that any mathematical moment be it variance which mostly influences volatility, mean which determines drift, or kurtosis which mostly influences skew are all uncertanties thus costs, so the higher they are, the higher the price of an option. Economically speaking, uncertainties are costs. Since costs raise prices, and volatility is an uncertainty, volatility raises prices. It should be noted that BS assumes that prices are lognormally distributed. They are not. The closest distribution, currently, is the logVariance Gamma distribution.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95990e2deb47c699cd1bc4ea73f3996b",
"text": "As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values. For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10. The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money. Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call. For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong. If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30). If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c41e61f063420043ec5dd6378082c882",
"text": "\"As I understand it, Implied Volatility represents the expected gyrations of an options contract over it's lifetime. No, it represents that expected movement of the underlying stock, not the option itself. Yes, the value of the option will move roughly in the same direction the value of the stock, but that's not what IV is measuring. I even tried staring at the math behind the Options pricing model to see if that could make more sense for me but that didn't help. That formula is correct for the Black-Scholes model - and it is not possible (or at least no one has done it yet) to solve for s to create a closed-form equation for implied volatility. What most systems do to calculate implied volatility is plug in different values of s (standard deviation) until a value for the option is found that matches the quoted market value ($12.00 in this example). That's why it's called \"\"implied\"\" volatility - the value is implied from market prices, not calculated directly. The thing that sticks out to me is that the \"\"last\"\" quoted price of $12 is outside of the bid-ask spread of $9.20 to $10.40, which tells me that the underlying stock has dropped significantly since the last actual trade. If the Implied Vol is calculated based on the last executed trade, then whatever algorithm they used to solve for a volatility that match that price couldn't find a solution, which then choose to show as a 0% volatility. In reality, the volatility is somewhere between the two neighbors of 56% and 97%, but with such a short time until expiry, there should be very little chance of the stock dropping below $27.50, and the value of the option should be somewhere around its intrinsic value (strike - stock price) of $9.18.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f6fca6507c6160f5b23a2ec3fc63a5ec",
"text": "In addition to the other answers, here's a proper strategy that implements your idea: If the options are priced properly they should account for future dividend payments, so all other things aside, a put option that is currently at the money should be in the money after the dividend, and hence more expensive than a put option that is out of the money today but at the money after the dividend has been paid. The unprotected futures (if priced correctly) should account for dividend payments based on the dividend history and, since maturing after the payment, should earn you (you sell them) less money because you deliver the physical after the dividend has been paid. The protected ones should reflect the expected total return value of the stock at the time of maturity (i.e. the dividend is mentally calculated into the price), and any dividend payments that happen on the way will be debited from your cash (and credited to the counterparty). Now that's the strategy that leaves you with nearly no risk (the only risk you bear is that the dividend isn't as high as you expected). But for that comfort you have to pay premiums. So to see if you're smarter than the market, subtract all the costs for the hedging instruments from your envisaged dividend yield and see if your still better than the lending rate. If so, do the trade.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cb92c598264f0609412325650c197e10",
"text": "For a deep in the money, it almost makes no difference because the intrinsic value, the price of the option, is seldom far above the liquidation value, the price of the underlying less the strike price. For an at the money, ceteris paribus, an early exercise would immediately cut the value of the option to 0; however, life is not so simple as JB King has shown. Purely theoretically, for an at or near the money option, an early exercise will be an instantaneous cost because the value after exercise is less than the previously trading or implied option price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "772842302ea41327c93f85df4bda5751",
"text": "\"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options. This is why sometimes a new option trader gets angry when buying calls prior to earnings. When 'surprise' good earnings are announced as hoped, the rise is stock price is largely offset by a fall in extrinsic value giving call holders little or no gain! As for the reverse situation where theta is lower than p/n would expect? Well you can actually have negative theta meaning the extrinsic portion rises over time. (this statement is a little confusing because theta is usually described as negative, but since you describe it as a positive number, negative here means the opposite of what you'd expect). This is a quote from \"\"Option Volatility & Pricing\"\". Keep in mind that they use 'positive' theta to mean the time value increases up over time: Is it ever possible for an option to have a positive theta such that if nothing changes the option will be worth more tomorrow than it is today? When futures options are subject to stock-type settlement, as they currently are in the United States, the carrying cost on a deeply in-the-money option, either a call or a put, can, under some circumstances, be greater than the volatility component. If this happens, and the option is European (no early exercise permitted), it will have a theoretical value less than parity (less than intrinsic value). As expiration approaches, the value of the option will slowly rise to parity. Hence, the option will have a positive theta. Sheldon Natenberg. Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques (Kindle Locations 1521-1525). Kindle Edition.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "871c0b42163b3996693d7c52f41c92e8",
"text": "You own the stock at $29.42 At $40, the stocks is called at $26. You can't add the call premium, as it's already accounted for. The trade is biased towards being bearish on the stock. (I edited and added the graph the evening I answered) Not the pretiest graph, but you get the idea. With that $29.42 cost, you are in the money till about $30, then go negative until the most you lose is $3.42.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "262e7e5fd2ce5bb84fb3f35d9644cb26",
"text": "\"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9f9c661e50e60782e8737963f1e16b86",
"text": "The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b09a51e84be825a7bd9b5dd31aee855c",
"text": "\"Some thoughts on your questions in order, Duration: You might want to look at the longest-dated option (often a \"\"LEAP\"\"), for a couple reasons. One is that transaction costs (spread plus commission, especially spread) are killer on options, so a longer option means fewer transactions, since you don't have to keep rolling the option. Two is that any fundamentals-based views on stocks might tend to require 3-5 years to (relatively) reliably work out, so if you're a fundamental investor, a 3-6 month option isn't great. Over 3-6 months, momentum, short-term news, short squeezes, etc. can often dominate fundamentals in determining the price. One exception is if you just want to hedge a short-term event, such as a pending announcement on drug approval or something, and then you would buy the shortest option that still expires after the event; but options are usually super-expensive when they span an event like this. Strike: Strike price on a long option can be thought of as a tradeoff between the max loss and minimizing \"\"insurance costs.\"\" That is, if you buy a deeply in-the-money put or call, the time value will be minimal and thus you aren't paying so much for \"\"insurance,\"\" but you may have 1/3 or 1/2 of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss. If you buy a put or call \"\"at the money,\"\" then you might have only say 10% of the value of the underlying tied up in the option and subject to loss, but almost the whole 10% may be time value (insurance cost), so you are losing 10% if the underlying stock price stays flat. I think of the deep in-the-money options as similar to buying stocks on margin (but the \"\"implied\"\" interest costs may be less than consumer margin borrowing rates, and for long options you can't get a margin call). The at-the-money options are more like buying insurance, and it's expensive. The commissions and spreads add significant cost, on top of the natural time value cost of the option. The annual costs would generally exceed the long-run average return on a diversified stock fund, which is daunting. Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 1: First thing is to be sure the options prices on a given underlying make sense at all; there are things that \"\"should\"\" hold, for example a synthetic long or short should match up to an actual long or short. These kinds of rules can break, for example on LinkedIn (LNKD) after its IPO, when shorting was not permitted, the synthetic long was quite a bit cheaper than a real long. Usually though this happens because the arbitrage is not practical. For example on LNKD, the shares to short weren't really available, so people doing synthetic shorts with options were driving up the price of the synthetic short and down the price of the synthetic long. If you did actually want to be long the stock, then the synthetic long was a great deal. However, a riskless arbitrage (buy synthetic long, short the stock) was not possible, and that's why the prices were messed up. Another basic relationship that should hold is put-call parity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put%E2%80%93call_parity Undervalued/overvalued options, pt. 2: Assuming the relationship to the underlying is sane (synthetic positions equivalent to actual positions) then the valuation of the option could focus on volatility. That is, the time value of the option implies the stock will move a certain amount. If the time value is high and you think the stock won't move much, you might short the option, while if the time value is low and you think the stock will move a lot, you might buy the option. You can get implied volatility from your broker perhaps, or Morningstar.com for example has a bunch of data on option prices and the implied components of the price model. I don't know how useful this really is though. The spreads on options are so wide that making money on predicting volatility better than the market is pretty darn hard. That is, the spread probably exceeds the amount of the mispricing. The price of the underlying is more important to the value of an option than the assumed volatility. How many contracts: Each contract is 100 shares, so you just match that up. If you want to hedge 100 shares, buy one contract. To get the notional value of the underlying multiply by 100. So say you buy a call for $30, and the stock is trading at $100, then you have a call on 100 shares which are currently priced at $10,000 and the option will cost $30*100=3,000. You are leveraged about 3 to 1. (This points to an issue with options for individual investors, which is that one contract is a pretty large notional value relative to most portfolios.)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a865a5d5c64214f97623ba7e72b97a64",
"text": "Theta is a variable in options pricing. Theta aka time decay decreases over time. The reason of this is that you have to think of the option as insurance. It is a hedge against actual holdings in an asset. Would you pay more or less for insurance that covers you for a year's time, would you pay more or less for insurance that covers you for a week? The answer is that the market will pay less for insurance that covers them for a lower period of time. This is one of several ways of thinking about it. There is also the probability that the option will be profitable at all, the further out in the future, the more likely it will be profitable and people will pay a premium for it. There are other variables in the black-scholes formula and it is the most widely used options pricing formula. But keep in mind, the geniuses that made up the formula blew up their hedge fund thinking they could sell the options at an inflated premium from their own formula to everyone. Ironic really.",
"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": "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": "fef760738b2b90f87c049bb8f0a1675f",
"text": "Consider the black-scholes-merton result. Notice that the expected value of the bond is its present value, discounted from the expiration date. The same is not applied to the price of the stock. The further in the future you go, the less value the bond carries because it's being discounted into oblivion. Now, looking at d1, as time tends towards infinity, so does d1. N(d1) is a probability. The higher d1, the higher the probability and vice versa, so as time increases, the probability for S trends to 100% while K is discounted away. Note that the math doesn't yet fully model reality, as extremely long dated options such as the European puts Buffett wrote were traded at ~1/2 the value the model said he should've. He still had to take a GAAP loss: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/2008ltr.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9b448fe5ba504e837dff91503cc1f6ae",
"text": "As the option approaches expiry, the delta will approach zero or one, depending on whether you're in or out of the money. This might be easiest to conceptualise if you look at the option value as a function of the stock price, and then realise that the delta is the slope of that curve. Now, as we get closer to expiry, time value fades away, and we get closer and closer to the intrinsic value, which looks like this hockey stick: __/ As you see, close to expiry, if you're out of the money, you have nothing (with delta zero), while if you're in the money, you have a forward (with delta one).",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
2b8716b627cfb477cb664c5a5441fc37
|
How an ETF reinvests dividends
|
[
{
"docid": "960315226e3367d5270440688a4dee7f",
"text": "Let me answer by parts: When a company gives dividends, the share price drops by the dividend amount. Not always by that exact amount for many different reasons (e.g. there are transaction costs if you reinvest, dividend taxes, etc). I have tested that empirically. Now, if all the shareholders choose to reinvest their dividends, will the share price go back up to what it was prior to the dividend? That is an interesting question. The final theoretical price of the company does not need to be that. When a company distributes dividends its liquidity diminish, there is an impact on the balance sheet of the company. If all investors go to the secondary market and reinvest the dividends in the shares, that does not restore the cash in the balance sheet of the company, hence the theoretical real value of the company is different before the dividends. Of course, in practice there is not such a thing as one theoretical value. In reality, if everybody reinvest the dividend, that will put upward pressure over the price of the company and, depending on the depth of the offers, meaning how many orders will counterbalance the upward pressure at the moment, the final price will be determined, which can be higher or lower than before, not necessarily equal. I ask because some efts like SPY automatically reinvest dividends. So what is the effect of this reinvestment on the stock price? Let us see the mechanics of these purchases. When a non distributing ETF receives cash from the dividends of the companies, it takes that cash and reinvest it in the whole basket of stocks that compose the index, not just in the companies that provided the dividends. The net effect of that is a small leverage effect. Let us say you bought one unit of SPY, and during the whole year the shares pay 2% of dividends that are reinvested. At the end of that year, it will be equivalent to having 1.02 units of SPY.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cea60b302b70be03bb12fc814eafffe",
"text": "SPY does not reinvest dividends. From the SPY prospectus: No Dividend Reinvestment Service No dividend reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers, at their own discretion, may offer a dividend reinvestment service under which additional Units are purchased in the secondary market at current market prices. SPY pays out quarterly the dividends it receives (after deducting fees and expenses). This is typical of ETFs. The SPY prospectus goes on to say: Distributions in cash that are reinvested in additional Units through a dividend reinvestment service, if offered by an investor’s broker-dealer, will be taxable dividends to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "226d14004f8da97cc73ed47b9a00ca7c",
"text": "The shareholders can't all re-invest their dividends -- it's not possible. Paying a dividend doesn't issue any new shares, so unless some of the existing shareholders sell their shares instead of re-investing, there aren't any shares available for the shareholders to re-invest in.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "9a8ccc256b4b385225e2a8fc0fbf50a1",
"text": "Many brokers administer their own dividend reinvestment plans. In this case, on dividend payment date, they automatically buy from the market on behalf of their reinvestment customers, and they administer all fractional shares across all customers. All of your shares are in the broker's street name anyway, the fractional share is simply in their account system. The process is well documented for several common online brokers; so any specific questions you may have about differences in policies or implementation should be directed to your broker: https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1301060000 https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/TDA208.pdf",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a877da1a7b6a8cd31d7a572769a1639e",
"text": "I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think. An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants. While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks. Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a8ec31c8e05e9102812438ff56dd99ca",
"text": "The answer, for me, has to do with compounding. That drop in price post-ex-div is not compounded. But if you reinvest your dividends back into the stock then you buy on those post-ex-div dips in price and your money is compounded because those shares you just bought will, themselves, yeald dividends next quarter. Also, with my broker, I reinvest the dividend incurring no commission. My broker has a feature to reinvest dividends automatically and he charges no commission on those buys. Edit:I forgot to mention that you do not incurr the loss from a drop in price until you sell the security. If you do not sell post-ex-div then you have no loss. As long as the dividend remains the same (or increases) then the theoretical ROI on that security goes up. The drop in price is actually to your benefit because you are able to acquire more shares with the money you just received in the dividend So the price coming down post-ex-div is a good thing (if you buy and hold).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8",
"text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0f26dd48200dcb941f9970672b9fce81",
"text": "\"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b23681c3322b5595b3103d3e8839086",
"text": "\"Generally, ETFs work on the basis that there exists a pair of values that can be taken at any moment in time: A Net Asset Value of each share in the fund and a trading market price of each share in the fund. It may help to picture these in baskets of about 50,000 shares for the creation/redemption process. If the NAV is greater than the market price, then arbitrageurs will buy up shares at the market price and do an \"\"in-kind\"\" transaction that will be worth the NAV value that the arbitrageurs could turn around and sell for an immediate profit. If the market price is greater than the NAV, then the arbitrageurs will buy up the underlying securities that can be exchanged \"\"in-kind\"\" for shares in the fund that can then be sold on the market for an immediate profit. What is the ETF Creation/Redemption Mechanism? would be a source on this though I imagine there are others. Now, in the case of VXX, there is something to be said for how much trading is being done and what impact this can have. From a July 8, 2013 Yahoo Finance article: At big option trade in the iPath S&P 500 VIX Short-Term Futures Note is looking for another jump in volatility. More than 250,000 VXX options have already traded, twice its daily average over the last month. optionMONSTER systems show that a trader bought 13,298 August 26 calls for the ask price of $0.24 in volume that was 6 times the strike's previous open interest, clearly indicating new activity. Now the total returns of the ETF are a combination of changes in share price plus what happens with the distributions which could be held as cash or reinvested to purchase more shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d3758f89694c049210e7beac9efa2c3a",
"text": "The trend in ETFs is total return: where the ETF automatically reinvests dividends. This philosophy is undoubtedly influenced by that trend. The rich and retired receive nearly all income from interest, dividends, and capital gains; therefore, one who receives income exclusively from dividends and capital gains must fund by withdrawing dividends and/or liquidating holdings. For a total return ETF, the situation is even more limiting: income can only be funded by liquidation. The expected profit is lost for the dividend as well as liquidating since the dividend can merely be converted back into securities new or pre-existing. In this regard, dividends and investments are equal. One who withdraws dividends and liquidates holdings should be careful not to liquidate faster than the rate of growth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b962d0c6c11e5ca3e77f09acaddf793b",
"text": "Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bb5ee20e74ef216c5a129e9c5f42fc1f",
"text": "There are ETFs and mutual funds that pay dividends. Mutual funds and ETFs are quite similar. Your advisor is correct regarding future funds you invest. But you already had incurred the risk of buying an individual stock. That is a 'sunk cost'. If you were satisfied with the returns you could have retained the HD stock you already owned and just put future moneys into an ETF or mutual fund. BTW: does your advisor receive a commission from your purchase of a mutual fund? That may have been his motivation to give you the advice to sell your existing holdings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8f94c2aedfcae7a40f3f9d639c2e702a",
"text": "Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0b40e6bb387ddd54926c012a95535149",
"text": "When you invest in an ETF or mutual fund, you're not investing in stocks or bonds. You're buying shares of a company that invests in stocks or bonds. This level of indirection is what makes it so bond funds do not 'mature.' Bonds inside of ETFs or mutual funds do have a maturity date. When they mature, the fund manager uses the principal value that is returned to purchase another bond that meets the investment objectives of the fund. So the fund never matures, since it is always investing in more bonds when the old ones mature. Unit investment trusts made of bonds do have a maturity date as well, since the portfolio does not change once the UIT is issued. As the individual bonds in the portfolio mature, the principle value is returned to investors. So the overall maturity date is effectively the maturity date of the last bond in the trust. All of the statements quoted above are accurate in explaining why there is no guarantee of a return of principle when investing in bond funds (ETF or open-ended mutual fund). The bonds they hold do mature, but are replaced within the fund as needed. The investor will never see it happen unless they watch the holdings reports filed by the funds. The only way to have an assurance of the return of principle is to invest in individual bonds, or in unit trusts made up of bonds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "efbb304b34f82e85b8b06a3c4e46874f",
"text": "\"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "446c12b0d6ce872ec6a585017050af10",
"text": "\"Does the bolded sentence apply for ETFs and ETF companies? No, the value of an ETF is determined by an exchange and thus the value of the share is whatever the trading price is. Thus, the price of an ETF may go up or down just like other securities. Money market funds can be a bit different as the mutual fund company will typically step in to avoid \"\"Breaking the Buck\"\" that could happen as a failure for that kind of fund. To wit, must ETF companies invest a dollar in the ETF for every dollar that an investor deposited in this aforesaid ETF? No, because an ETF is traded as shares on the market, unless you are using the creation/redemption mechanism for the ETF, you are buying and selling shares like most retail investors I'd suspect. If you are using the creation/redemption system then there are baskets of other securities that are being swapped either for shares in the ETF or from shares in the ETF.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "413d3bf0ea58ed81d3f3075a50cae56d",
"text": "Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a2dd5540db63905132ff6419c895d1df",
"text": "\"Because I'll be investing time, effort, energy and take some initial risks I would like to receive more shares (more than just purely financial contribution would suggest) I don't see money in that list. How much money will you be contributing to your own project? Mutual understanding, focusing on big image, rather that covering each and every edge case. These kinds of one page agreements are an excellent \"\"idea\"\" and they work just fine when everyone is happy and everything is working well; they are an utter nightmare if anything goes sideways. Coincidently, the reason you write anything down at all is to have everyone agree on the same big picture at the same time. People's memory of the original big picture gets fuzzy when their money might not come back to them. You don't need to cover all edge cases, but you need to cover obvious negative outcomes. What if you can't find a renter? What if you're late paying someone back? What if your vendor \"\"repairs\"\" something incorrectly? What if you forget to get a permit and the vendor needs to come back to tear it all apart and redo the work? What if your project needs more money, who is required to contribute, who has the option to contribute, who gets diluted? Who is doing the work of managing the project, how much is that person getting paid, how is that person's pay determined, how can it be adjusted? Is any work expected from any other investor, on what terms, who decides the terms? What if you get an offer to buy the building, who decides to sell, etc and so forth and on and on and on... You write down an agreement so everyone's understanding of the agreement is recorded. You write down what will happen in XYZ event so you don't argue about what you all should do when that event does ultimately occur. You take as much equity as your other investors will allow you to have, and you give them as much as required to get their money. Understand that the more cooks there are in the kitchen the more difficult it is to act on a problem when one arises; when not if. Your ego-stroking play to \"\"open source crowd-sourced wisdom\"\" is nothing more than a silly request for vague advice at no cost. Starting a project on trust, transparency and integrity is naive. This is about money. Why on earth should anyone trust you with their money if you won't do the most basic step of stewardship and spend a couple hundred pounds to talk to a local professional about organizing your first ever project. To answer your question directly, the first precaution you should take is not taking money from any of your friends or family.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
250cc0cea5455804ec816620f951fbe9
|
Which Earnings Figure for Graham's “Stock Selection for the Defensive Investor”?
|
[
{
"docid": "dbc54297aa25d0a851d8421cd7854b7c",
"text": "\"In the Income Statement that you've linked to, look for the line labeled \"\"Net Income\"\". That's followed by a line labeled \"\"Preferred Dividends\"\", which is followed by \"\"Income Available to Common Excl. Extra Items\"\" and \"\"Income Available to Common Incl. Extra Items\"\". Those last two are the ones to look at. The key is that these lines reflect income minus dividends paid to preferred stockholders (of which there are none here), and that's income that's available to ordinary shareholders, i.e., \"\"earnings for the common stock\"\".\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f",
"text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.",
"title": ""
},
{
"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": "93ac5c7e87fbf813b47b44d966bcd307",
"text": "\"Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet. Naively you'd think \"\"great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!\"\" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment. You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt. Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment. So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question. The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An \"\"easy\"\" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period. Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset. It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year. It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal. Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0. The log of zero is negative infinity. Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it. This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets. In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens. In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth. We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49. The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could \"\"afford\"\" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the \"\"hit it too painful\"\" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion. We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72. (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you \"\"if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?\"\" When the answer is \"\"no\"\", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance. The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied. Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever). And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not \"\"worth it\"\" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved. This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "143cfe560ff80440b66f8f14d274ece6",
"text": "Security Analysis(very difficult for beginners )& Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. All about(book series by McGraw) on Stocks,Derivatives,Options,Futures,Market Timings. Reminiscence of a Stock Operator (Life of jesse Livermore). Memoirs , Popular Delusions and Madness of the Crowds by Charles Mackay. Basics of Technical analysis includig Trading Strategies via Youtube videos & Google. Also opt for Seeking alpha free version to learn about portfolio allocation under current scenario there will be few articles as it will ask for premium version if you love it then opt for it. But still these books will do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7ba96c65118aba556e5fd66ad996b27",
"text": "\"In this instance \"\"quotational\"\" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function. Staunch \"\"value investors\"\" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is \"\"worth\"\" and what the current market mood quotes as its price. You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a \"\"quotational loss.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "763b874917da099d22ea9724fbc4d829",
"text": "PEG is Price to Earnings Growth. I've forgotten how it's calculated, I just remember that a PEG ratio of 1-2 is attractive by Graham & Dodd standards.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c32b346f9673dd384bb14d3388462a3c",
"text": "\"The company was paying \"\"only\"\" $1 a share in dividends, compared to $10 a share in earnings. That is a so-called payout ratio of 10%, which is low. A more normal payout ratio would be 40%, something like $4 a share. If a $13 stock had a $4 dividend, the dividend yield would be about 30%, which would be \"\"too high,\"\" meaning that the price would go up to drive down the resulting yield. Even $1 a share on a $13 stock is a high dividend of about 7%, allowing for appreciation to say, the $20-$25 range. Graham was a great believer in the theory that management should pay out \"\"most\"\" of its earnings in dividends. He believed that by holding dividends so far below earnings, the company was either being \"\"stingy,\"\" or signalling that the $10 a share of earnings was unsustainable. Either of these would be bad for the stock. For instance, if $1 a share in dividends actually represented a 40% payout ratio, it would signal management's belief that they could normally earn only $2.50 a year instead of $10.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "012987ba2771a182c17825ec9343c062",
"text": "I’ll start with what worked for me, to get me hooked. This list is by no means exhaustive. *One Up On Wall Street* by Peter Lynch discusses competitive advantages and staying close to the story of a business. Explores the concept of ‘buy what you know’. He has also written *Beating the Street*. *The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives* by Leonard Mlodinow is not dissimilar to *A Random Walk Down Wall Street*, but I preferred this book as it explores the concepts of randomness and survivors bias. *Against the Gods* by Peter Bernstein is a dense book, but in my opinion is the definitive text on the development of numbers, probability theory, and risk management. I absolutely love this book. *The Most Important Thing* by Howard Marks is immensely readable, enjoyable, and looks at value investing for the long run. Howard Marks has been a macro behavioural investor before behavioural investing was a thing. Speaking of behavioural biases, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman is a spectacular look at how your brain’s quick-trigger responses can often be wrong. On the subject of behaviour and biases, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion* by Robert Cialdini is another topic-defining book More books by long term veteran professional investment managers that should be enjoyed: - *The Little Book That (Still) Beats the Market* by Joel Greenblatt - *Beat the Crowd* by Ken Fisher - *Big Money Thinks Small* by Joel Tillinghast - *Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits* by Philip A. Fisher - *The Little Book of Behavioural Investing* by James Montier - *Margin of Safety* by Seth Klarman And I’ll be banned from this forum without mentioning *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham. As per some other comments, my personal opinion is that books that describe events or periods of time like *Liars’ Poker* [80s Junk Bonds], *The Big Short* [Financial Crisis], *When Genius Failed* [the LTCM collapse, excellent read by Rogers Lowenstein], *All The Devils Are Here* [by McLean and Nocera, another Financial Crisis book, much better than Lewis’s, IMO] are all educational and quite entertaining, but don’t honestly have much to do with the actual nuts and bolts of the real financial industry. Enjoy!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf6c86216612076e2a691b7e92c45363",
"text": "\"From the Vanguard page - This seemed the easiest one as S&P data is simple to find. I use MoneyChimp to get - which confirms that Vanguard's page is offering CAGR, not arithmetic Average. Note: Vanguard states \"\"For U.S. stock market returns, we use the Standard & Poor's 90 from 1926 through March 3, 1957,\"\" while the Chimp uses data from Nobel Prize winner, Robert Shiller's site.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a6e87ece5bda5dbb3720b8f90837b88",
"text": "\"Here is how I would approach that problem: 1) Find the average ratios of the competitors: 2) Find the earnings and book value per share of Hawaiian 3) Multiply the EPB and BVPS by the average ratios. Note that you get two very different numbers. This illustrates why pricing from ratios is inexact. How you use those answers to estimate a \"\"price\"\" is up to you. You can take the higher of the two, the average, the P/E result since you have more data points, or whatever other method you feel you can justify. There is no \"\"right\"\" answer since no one can accurately predict the future price of any stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "577d32a6386ae00278c2b00cdf53fbc9",
"text": "\"I would change that statement to \"\"very few people can CONSISTENTLY beat the market \"\". Successful strategies will get piled into and reduce returns. Markets will pick up inefficiencies, but at the same time they do exists. Tons of interesting reading especially in regards to value. Is there a risk premium that we don't know for value? Or is it a market behavior thing?\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "89a27825da28e95937d83b40b8dd83e0",
"text": "\"For some studies on why investors make the decisions they do, check out For a more readable, though less rigorous, look at it, also consider Kahneman's recent book, \"\"Thinking, Fast and Slow\"\", which includes the two companion papers written with Tversky on prospect theory. In certain segments (mostly trading) of the investing industry, it is true that something like 90% of investors lose money. But only in certain narrow segments (and most folks would rightly want traders to be counted as a separate beast than an 'investor'). In most segments, it's not true that most investors lose money, but it still is true that most investors exhibit consistent biases that allow for mispricing. I think that understanding the heuristics and biases approach to economics is critical, both because it helps you understand why there are inefficiencies, and also because it helps you understand that quantitative, principled investing is not voodoo black magic; it's simply applying mathematics for the normative part and experimental observations for the descriptive part to yield a business strategy, much like any other way of making money.\"",
"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": "bdb12ade8408b69937aefe8024ad2e2f",
"text": "Then I'll cite it as the last paragraph of step 3 in getting started. He says everything is insider trading and that's bullshit; if he had any interest in giving real advice he would define insider trading as trading with material, non-public information as it says in all the statutes. It's the same meaningless nonsense as the paragraph before that, where he says good investors don't time the market but know when to get in and get out. Those are the same things at the level he has described them; it would take a book with actual investing advice like Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor or A Random Walk Down Wall Street for an actual view into investment.",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
92b319d99f70e3cded65a9bd4ae1c0ed
|
Does negative P/E ratio mean stock is weak?
|
[
{
"docid": "69ecd756d26ab41775af6aef6f9aa581",
"text": "P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "99d863578d26125199b3f9ac63a5bf4a",
"text": "\"To perhaps better explain the \"\"why\"\" behind this rule of thumb, first think of what it means when the P/E ratio changes. If the P/E ratio increases, then this means the stock has become more expensive (in relative terms)--for example, an increase in the price but no change in the earnings means you are now paying more for each cent of earnings than you previously were; or, a decrease in the earnings but no change in the price means you are now paying the same for less earnings. Keeping this in mind, consider what happens to the PE ratio when earnings increase (grow)-- if the price of the stock remains the same, then the stock has actually become relatively \"\"cheaper\"\", since you are now getting more earnings for the same price. All else equal, we would not expect this to happen--instead, we would expect the price of the stock to increase as well proportionate to the earnings growth. Therefore, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a rate that is faster than its earnings are growing is becoming more expensive (the price paid per cent of earnings is increasing). Similarly, a stock whose PE ratio is growing at a slower rate than its earnings is becoming cheaper (the price paid per cent of earnings is decreasing). Finally, a stock whose P/E ratio is growing at the same rate as its earnings are growing is retaining the same relative valuation--even though the actual price of the stock may be increasing, you are paying the same amount for each cent of the underlying company's earnings.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8b35c5e8c84e7c3a09681cbaa08b71d2",
"text": "Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic. If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a4af6d5d949050b38d46a09f9238888",
"text": "And the kind folk at Yahoo Finance came to the same conclusion. Keep in mind, book value for a company is like looking at my book value, all assets and liabilities, which is certainly important, but it ignores my earnings. BAC (Bank of America) has a book value of $20, but trades at $8. Some High Tech companies have negative book values, but are turning an ongoing profit, and trade for real money.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0fd5110b577f8fb73db726ebc20f4885",
"text": "In the equity world, if a stock trades at 110 and is going to pay a dividend of 10 in a few days, an option expiring after the ex date would take the dividend into account and would trade as if the stock were trading at 100. (Negative) interest rates may also lead to a similar effect. In the commodity world the cost of carry needs to be taken into account.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d91a0fb3d7176d422c9f62acef216adc",
"text": "\"In general, there should be a \"\"liquidity premium\"\" which means that less-liquid stocks should be cheaper. That's because to buy such a stock, you should demand a higher rate of return to compensate for the liquidity risk (the possibility that you won't be able to sell easily). Lower initial price = higher eventual rate of return. That's what's meant when Investopedia says the security would be cheaper (on average). Is liquidity good? It depends. Here's what illiquidity is. Imagine you own a rare piece of art. Say there are 10 people in the world who collect this type of art, and would appreciate what you own. That's an illiquid asset, because when you want to sell, maybe those 10 people aren't buying - maybe they don't want your particular piece, or they all happen to be short on funds. Or maybe worse, only one of them is buying, so they have all the negotiating leverage. You'll have to lower your price if you're really in a hurry to sell. Maybe if you lower your price enough, you can get one of the 10 buyers interested, even if none were initially. An illiquid asset is bad for sellers. Illiquid means there aren't enough buyers for you to get a bidding war going at the time of your choosing. You'll potentially have to wait around for buyers to turn up, or for a stock, maybe you'd have to sell a little bit at a time as buyers want the shares. Illiquid can be bad for buyers, too, if the buyer is for some reason in a hurry; maybe nobody is selling at any given time. But, usually buyers don't have to be in a hurry. An exception may be if you short sell something illiquid (brokers often won't let you do this, btw). In that case you could be a forced buyer and this could be very bad on an illiquid security. If there are only one or two sellers out there, they now have the negotiating leverage and they can ask whatever price they want. Illiquidity is very bad when mixed with margin or short sales because of the potential for forced trades at inopportune times. There are plenty of obscure penny stocks where there might be only one or two trades per day, or fewer. The spread is going to be high on these because the bids at a given time will just be lowball offers from buyers who aren't really all that interested, unless you want to give your stock away, in which case they'll take it. And the asks are going to be from sellers who want to get a decent price, but maybe there aren't really any buyers willing to pay, so the ask is just sitting there with no takers. The bids and asks may be limit orders that have been sitting open for 3 weeks and forgotten about. Contrast with a liquid asset. For example, a popular-model used car in good condition would be a lot more liquid than a rare piece of art, though not nearly as liquid as most stocks. You can probably find several people that want to buy it living nearby, and you're not going to have to drop the price to get a buyer to show up. You might even get those buyers in a bidding war. From illiquid penny stocks, there's a continuum all the way up to the most heavily-traded stocks such as those in the S&P500. With these at a given moment there will be thousands of buyers and sellers, so the spread is going to close down to nearly zero. If you think about it, just statistically, if there are thousands of bids and thousands of asks, then the closest bid-ask pair is going to be close together. That's a narrow spread. While if there are 3 bids and 2 asks on some illiquid penny stock, they might be dollars away from each other, and the number of shares desired might not match up. You can see how liquidity is good in some situations and not in others. An illiquid asset gives you more opportunity to get a good deal because there aren't a lot of other buyers and sellers around and there's some opportunity to \"\"negotiate\"\" within the wide spread. For some assets maybe you can literally negotiate by talking to the other party, though obviously not when trading stocks on an exchange. But an illiquid asset also means you might get a bad deal, especially if you need to sell quickly and the only buyers around are making lowball offers. So the time to buy illiquid assets is when you can take your time on both buying and selling, and will have no reason for a forced trade on a particular timeline. This usually means no debt is involved, since creditors (including your margin broker) can force you to trade. It also means you don't need to spend the money anytime soon, since if you suddenly needed the money you'd have a forced trade on your hands. If you have the time, then you put a price out there that's very good for you, and you wait for someone to show up and give you that price - this is how you get a good deal. One more note, another use of the term liquid is to refer to assets with low or zero volatility, such as money market funds. An asset with a lot of volatility around its intrinsic or true value is effectively illiquid even if there's high trade volume, in that any given point in time might not be a good time to sell, because the price isn't at the right level. Anyway, the general definition of a liquid investment is one that you'd be comfortable cashing out of at a moment's notice. In this sense, most stocks are not all that liquid, despite high trading volume. In different contexts people may use \"\"liquid\"\" in this sense or to mean a low bid-ask spread.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "81d3eb9c34cca8052b7e5312e0a28964",
"text": "If that condition is permanent -- the stock will NEVER pay dividends and you will NEVER be able to sell it -- then yes, it sounds to me like this is a worthless piece of paper. If there is some possibility that the stock will pay dividends in the future, or that a market will exist to sell it, then you are making a long-term investment. It all depends on how likely it is that the situation will change. If the investment is small, maybe it's worth it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1d31c84c12079548bbdae3a5a9c8cc01",
"text": "Beta is an indication of a Stock's risk with respect to the market. For instance if a stock had a beta of 1 it means it is in tandem with the S&P 500. If it is more than 1, the stock is volatile. If it is less than 1, it implies market movement doesn't affect this stock much. Tech stocks and small cap stocks have high beta, utilities have low beta. (In general, not always). Hope this helps - I've tried to explain it in very simple terms!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37bf7229d625595c8ad96f6ebdc4c443",
"text": "The idea here is to get an idea of how to value each business and thus normalize how highly prized is each dollar that a company makes. While some companies may make millions and others make billions, how does one put these in proper context? One way is to consider a dollar in earnings for the company. How does a dollar in earnings for Google compare to a dollar for Coca-cola for example? Some companies may be valued much higher than others and this is a way to see that as share price alone can be rather misleading since some companies can have millions of shares outstanding and split the shares to keep the share price in a certain range. Thus the idea isn't that an investor is paying for a dollar of earnings but rather how is that perceived as some companies may not have earnings and yet still be traded as start-ups and other companies may be running at a loss and thus the P/E isn't even meaningful in this case. Assuming everything but the P/E is the same, the lower P/E would represent a greater value in a sense, yes. However, earnings growth rate can account for higher P/Es for some companies as if a company is expected to grow at 40% for a few years it may have a higher P/E than a company growing earnings at 5% for example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "99a1c389d5216cd5cdf955b049a2fac6",
"text": "A lower Price/Book Value means company is undervalued. It could also mean something horribly wrong. While it may look like a good deal, remember;",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "620902df8b6a4a4d24aa0def871f3a3f",
"text": "The P/E ratio is a measure of historic (the previous financial year) earnings against the current share price. If the P/E is high, this means that the market perceives a big increase in future earnings per share. In other words, the perception is that this is a fast growing company. Higher earnings may also equate to big increases in dividends and rapid expansion. On the other hand, if the P/E is low, then there is a perception that either earnings per share are decreasing or that future growth in earnings is negligible. In other words, low P/E equates to a perception of low future growth and therefore low prospects for future payout increases - possibly even decreases. The market is (rightly) usually willing to pay a premium for fast growing companies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "053fc9bcde5b00d378e822f216f521bb",
"text": "Let's use an example: You buy 10 machines for 100k, and those machines produce products sold for a total of 10k/year in profit (ignoring labor/electricity/sales costs etc). If the typical investor requires a rate of return of 10% on this business, your company would be worth 100k. In investing terms, you would have a PE ratio of 10. The immediately-required return will be lower if substantially greater returns are expected in the future (expected growth), and the immediately required return will be higher if your business is expected to shrink. If at the end of the year you take your 10k and purchase another machine, your valuation will rise to 110k, because you can now produce 11k in earnings per year. If your business has issued 10,000 shares, your share price will rise from $10 to $11. Note that you did not just put cash in the bank, and that you now have a higher share price. At the end of year 2, with 11 machines, lets imagine that customer demand has fallen and you are forced to cut prices. You somehow produce only 10k in profit, instead of the anticipated 11k. Investors believe this 10k in annual profit will continue into the forseable future. The investor who requires 10% return would then only value your company at 100k, and your share price would fall back from $11 to $10. If your earnings had fallen even further to 9k, they might value you at 90k (9k/0.1=$90k). You still have the same machines, but the market has changed in a way that make those machines less valuable. If you've gone from earning 10k in year one with 10 machines to 9k in year two with 11 machines, an investor might assume you'll make even less in year three, potentially only 8k, so the value of your company might even fall to 80k or lower. Once it is assumed that your earnings will continue to shrink, an investor might value your business based on a higher required rate of return (e.g. maybe 20% instead of 10%), which would cause your share price to fall even further.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7260e33a94f0592cc40cc223803db899",
"text": "There are books on the subject of valuing stocks. P/E ratio has nothing directly to do with the value of a company. It may be an indication that the stock is undervalued or overvalued, but does not indicate the value itself. The direct value of company is what it would fetch if it was liquidated. For example, if you bought a dry cleaner and sold all of the equipment and receivables, how much would you get? To value a living company, you can treat it like a bond. For example, assume the company generates $1 million in profit every year and has a liquidation value of $2 million. Given the risk profile of the business, let's say we would like to make 8% on average per year, then the value of the business is approximately $1/0.08 + $2 = $14.5 million to us. To someone who expects to make more or less the value might be different. If the company has growth potential, you can adjust this figure by estimating the estimated income at different percentage chances of growth and decline, a growth curve so to speak. The value is then the net area under this curve. Of course, if you do this for NYSE and most NASDAQ stocks you will find that they have a capitalization way over these amounts. That is because they are being used as a store of wealth. People are buying the stocks just as a way to store money, not necessarily make a profit. It's kind of like buying land. Even though the land may never give you a penny of profit, you know you can always sell it and get your money back. Because of this, it is difficult to value high-profile equities. You are dealing with human psychology, not pennies and dollars.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3aed50438b0be52b9a0a266e82bb726e",
"text": "people implicity agree to sell stocks when a company does bad But, remember, when you sell the stock of a company that, in your estimation, 'did bad', someone else had to buy; otherwise, there is no sale. The someone else who bought your shares evidently disagrees with your assessment. Did you sell because the company didn't earn a profit at all? Did it not earn a profit because it's in a dead-end business that is slowly but inevitably declining to zero? Something like Sears Holdings? Or did it not make a profit because it is in an emerging market that will possibly someday become hugely profitable? Something like Tesla, Inc.? Did you sell because the company made a profit, but it was lower than expected? Did they make a lower-than-expected profit because of lower sales? Why were the sales lower? Is the industry declining? Was the snow too heavy to send the construction crews out? Did the company make a big investment to build a new plant that will, in a few years, yield even higher sales and profits? What are the profits year-over-year? Increasing? Declining? Usually, investors are willing to pay a premium, that is more than expected, for a stock in a company with robust growth. As you can see, the mere fact that a company reported a profit is only one of many factors that determine the price of the shares in the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74a6a11df8141bf6906945103103b30f",
"text": "Right, I understand minority interest but it is typically reported as a positive under liabilities instead of a negative. For example, when you are calculating the enterprise value of a company, you add back in the minority interest. Enterprise Value= Market Share +Pref Equity + Min Interest+ Total Debt - Cash and ST Equivalents. EV is used to quantify the total price of a company's worth. If you have negative Min Interest on your books, that will make your EV less than it should be, creating an incorrect valuation. This just doesn't make any sense to me. Does it mean that the subsidiary that they had a stake in had a negative earning?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "74f5180f25f128a9c22aaf7654f0730f",
"text": "Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends). A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio. It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate. When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
af89a9a7f6618fe31a0702f5de3c1d0f
|
Do stocks give you more control over your finances than mutual funds?
|
[
{
"docid": "fe940f93051087ade962c2d903cb6d8e",
"text": "In my opinion, the ability to set a sell or buy price is the least of my concerns. Your question of whether to choose individual stocks vs funds prompts a different issue for me to bring to light. Choosing stocks that beat the market is not simple. In fact, a case can be made for the fact that the average fund lags the market by more and more over time. In the end, conceding that fact and going with the lowest cost funds or ETFs will beat 90% of investors over time.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12dfd7a4c63537325923b5f65bab573a",
"text": "Exchange-traded funds are bought and sold like stocks so you'd be able to place stop orders on them just like you could for individual stocks. For example, SPY would be the ticker for an S & P 500 ETF known as a SPDR. Open-end mutual funds don't have stop orders because of how the buying and selling is done which is on unknown prices and often in fractional shares. For example, the Vanguard 500 Index Investor shares(VFINX) would be an example of an S & P 500 tracker here.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3cd8c165d5a3432ca97e0bc8d9c44877",
"text": "The issue with trading stocks vs. mutual funds (or ETFs) is all about risk. You trade Microsoft you now have a Stock Risk in your portfolio. It drops 5% you are down 5%. Instead if you want to buy Tech and you buy QQQ if MSFT fell 5% the QQQs would not be as impacted to the downside. So if you want to trade a mutual fund, but you want to be able to put in stop sell orders trade ETFs instead. Considering mutual funds it is better to say Invest vs. Trade. Since all fund families have different rules and once you sell (if you sell it early) you will pay a fee and will not be able to invest in that same fund for x number of days (30, 60...)",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d233b4aaff599f1666c92147468e89e",
"text": "The mutual fund will price at day's end, while the ETF trades during the day, like a stock. If you decide at 10am, that some event will occur during the day that will send the market up, the ETF is preferable. Aside from that, the expenses are identical, a low .14%. No real difference especially in a Roth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "63c887e3ce5fcbdc3b4a2d62eecfd837",
"text": "Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4fbab26ea90ed96ee595869a4742a7f8",
"text": "diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb7489191787be6458bb24d48707cb7c",
"text": "You are not limited in these 3 choices. You can also invest in ETFs, which are similar to mutual funds, but traded like stocks. Usually (at least in Canada), MERs for ETFs are smaller than for mutual funds.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d2bfbfbabfc07ef43711447587646f45",
"text": "A share is just a part ownership of a company. If you buy a share of a green stock in the open market, you now just own part of a green company. Just like if you buy a house, the money you paid moves to the former owner, but what you are getting is a clear asset in return that you now own. Via mutual funds/indexes this can get a little more complicated (voting rights etc tend to go to the mutual/indexing company rather than the holders of the fund), but is approximately the same thing: the fund buys assets on the open market, then holds them, buys more, or sells them on behalf of the fund investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b4edc4c5604999faf7ba4fa4c1f99c4d",
"text": "Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "46b129bf40544b2543dc880dfa3a75c0",
"text": "A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2a0b627c9da236657a47dd6eddb5215c",
"text": "Ownership vs loanership. You can either own the factors of production, and so directly recieve the dividends of that production, or you can loan your wealth to someone who will use it to buy ownership in the factors of production, and give you a portion. Guess which one grows faster? One thing that was missed in this article, is that the political climate towards equity ownership has been very favorable since the 1980's, encouraging and simplifying the ownership of equity. The problem is that the middle class didn't take advantage of it, and now it's essentially too late.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9762f2e3e92994e473a00118bd94166",
"text": "For me, spending my spare time on my career offers better return on investment (time) than stock investing, so I don't have the time to try to craft strategies about stock confusion anyway. It just serves as further proof to me that trying to time the market on short time scales is doomed unless you can account for all the irrationality of human behavior.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31ddc4ebffed415c057593a0a676c33a",
"text": "Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6b7485e54f14bda079a021ac233b0c0d",
"text": "I think that assuming that you're not looking to trade the fund, an index Mutual Fund is a better overall value than an ETF. The cost difference is negligible, and the ability to dollar-cost average future contributions with no transaction costs. You also have to be careful with ETFs; the spreads are wide on a low-volume fund and some ETFs are going more exotic things that can burn a novice investor. Track two similar funds (say Vanguard Total Stock Market: VTSMX and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF: VTI), you'll see that they track similarly. If you are a more sophisticated investor, ETFs give you the ability to use options to hedge against declines in value without having to incur capital gains from the sale of the fund. (ie. 20 years from now, can use puts to make up for short-term losses instead of selling shares to avoid losses) For most retail investors, I think you really need to justify using ETFs versus mutual funds. If anything, the limitations of mutual funds (no intra-day trading, no options, etc) discourage speculative behavior that is ultimately not in your best interest. EDIT: Since this answer was written, many brokers have begun offering a suite of ETFs with no transaction fees. That may push the cost equation over to support Index ETFs over Index Mutual Funds, particularly if it's a big ETF with narrow spreads..",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66e0f00ac4ddfe238ea77d6e34291c88",
"text": "Stock markets are supposed to be about investment and providing capital to companies for operations and research. High frequency trading is only about gaming the market and nothing else. Arguments that this provides more capital or liquidity don't make any sense because the speed of trading is such that listed companies cannot take advantage and only high frequency traders are served.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2b61c5a5c10181068fa87709c6c4ddf5",
"text": "Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8678ed4f912e6edb926d4ad3c93d5ea7",
"text": "Shareholders have voting rights, and directors have fiduciary obligations to shareholders. Sure, shareholders have rights to the dividends, but stock confers decisionmaking powers. I'm not really sure what your answer to this is, or how you are differentiating the concept of ownership from this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93e6f4f2c4c147ccebf57367703b8672",
"text": "Its less about retail investors and more about the large institutions. Harvard's endowment for example, is held in trust. So is the endowment for every university, charity, and foundation. In terms of retail investors its probably much less than 50%. Its just that the massive amount of wealth in the wealthiest people tips the balance drastically. The top 20 wealthiest people in the world have ALL of their assets in trust. They probably dont have much personal ownership in anything and they hold more money than almost everyone else combined.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d3a702304429eaf66d8aa177ca74707c
|
Algorithmic trading in linux using python
|
[
{
"docid": "31aee2d34d62c45dbe1bd0439bd542b1",
"text": "\"A couple options that I know of: Interactive Brokers offers a \"\"paper trading\"\" mode to its account holders that allows you to start with a pretend stack of money and place simulated trades to test trading ideas. They also provide an API that allows you to interface with their platform programmatically for retrieving quotes, placing orders, and the such. As you noted, however, it's not free; you must hold a funded brokerage account in order to qualify for access to their platform. In order to maintain an account, there are minimums for required equity and monthly activity (measured in dollars that you spend on commissions), so you won't get access to their platform without having a decent amount of skin in the game. IB's native API is Java-based; IbPy is an unofficial wrapper that makes the interface available in Python. I've not used IB at all myself, but I've heard good things about their API and its accessibility via IbPy. Edit: IB now supports Python natively via their published API, so using IbPy is no longer needed, unless you wish to use Python 2.x. The officially supported API is based on Python 3. TD Ameritrade also offers an API that is usable by its brokerage clients. They do not offer any such \"\"paper trading\"\" mode, so you would need to \"\"execute\"\" transactions based on quotes at the corresponding trade times and then keep track of your simulated account history yourself. The API supports quote retrieval, price history, and trade execution, among other functions. TDA might be more attractive than IB if you're looking for a low-cost link into market data, as I believe their minimum-equity levels are lower. To get access, you'll need to sign up for an API developer account, which I believe requires an NDA. I don't believe there is an official Python implementation of the API, but if you're a capable Python writer, you shouldn't have trouble hooking up to the published interfaces. Some caveats: as when doing any strategy backtesting, you'll want to be sure to be pessimistic when doing so, so your optimism doesn't make your trades look more successful than they would be in the real world. At a minimum, you'll want to ensure that your simulations transact at the posted bid/ask prices, not necessarily the last trade's price, as well as any commissions and fees associated with the trade. A more robust scheme would also take into account the depth of the order book (also known as level 2 quotes), which can cause additional slippage in the prices at which you buy/sell your security. An even more robust scheme would take into account the potential latency of trade execution, looking at all prices over some time period that covers the maximum expected latency and simulating the trade at the worst-possible price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7503085ce49c8242851ea5cf345ffa1f",
"text": "\"You can have a look at betabrokers. It's an simulated stock trading platform which is entirely email-based. You start with 10 000$ and you make transactions with commands in the subject line of the email (e.g. \"\"buy 250$ AAPL\"\" or \"\"cover 20 shares of AAPL\"\"). It should be straightforward to add an email interface to your python script.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5fd2d162f642ff8472e70dd04df379bd",
"text": "I don't think any open source trading project is going to offer trial or demo accounts. In fact, I'm not clear on what you mean by this. Are you looking for some example data sets so you can see how your algorithm would perform historically? If you contact whatever specific brokers that you'd like to interface with, they can provide things like connection tests, etc., but no one is going to let you do live trades on a trial or demo basis. For more information about setting this sort of thing up at home, here's a good link: < http://www.stat.cmu.edu/~abrock/algotrading/index.html >. It's not Python specific, but should give you a good idea of what to do.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "97a05c3d030d2e21517b4fe44e809822",
"text": "In Japan, there's a competition well-lasting since 2004 or so where you can run your own software agent in a virtual market. Market data is updated from the real world everyday. And if your agent proves good, the organizer puts it into the real market. The language is unfortunately limited to Java only to my knowledge. OS is not limited since your agent is supposed to run on the organizer's environment. English might not be well supported on their web site...",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "53bb45d891a7bec4bad44ba09a8080bb",
"text": "\"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6a30f5616e94418f406aebfface37b",
"text": "Have you looked into GnuCash? It lets you track your stock purchases, and grabs price updates. It's designed for double-entry accounting, but I think it could fit your use case.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419ccafaa188ccb2a84201f32683508e",
"text": "Algo traders/quants/market backtesters/coders/et al. I am looking to backtest basic things like the correlation of P/E, EV/EBITDA, etc. to market performance. I know a little R and Python. What is the easiest way to learn to backtest this sort of stuff? I want to eventually get into algo trading sort of stuff. I'd **greatly** appreciate it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7be31f2302c1db1590563be8a8793d7a",
"text": "\"Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis. It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to. Basically what \"\"HFTs\"\" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else. Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor. So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices. Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq. So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7. Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an \"\"evil HFT\"\" instead of a \"\"trustworthy bank.\"\" But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2ccda6b515f09fe101f3d7e6ccb0150d",
"text": "You should consider Turbocash. It's a mature open-source project, installed locally (thick client).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e78a069d54bc15c4fb166fce684c51a7",
"text": "\"The quantity are going to get booty raped when the cycle turns. The unprecedented bull run has lead to their models being skewed which is bad news for the quants who are the \"\"programmer funds\"\" you reference. I'm just an analyst and I use python regularly for my job, but I don't think AI can replace expertise.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "557de771f5d36064911e7a767f197b57",
"text": "\"In US public stock markets there is no difference between the actions individual retail traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take and the actions institutional/corporate traders are \"\"permitted\"\" to take. The only difference is the cost of those actions. For example, if you become a Registered Market Maker on, say, the BATS stock exchange, you'll get some amazing rebates and reduced transaction prices; however, in order to qualify for Registered Market Maker status you have to maintain constant orders in the book for hundreds of equities at significant volumes. An individual retail trader is certainly permitted to do that, but it's probably too expensive. Algorithmic trading is not the same as automated trading (algorithmic trading can be non-automated, and automated trading can be non-algorithmic), and both can be anywhere from low- to high-frequency. A low-frequency automated strategy is essentially indistinguishable from a person clicking their mouse several times per day, so: no, from a legal or regulatory perspective there is no special procedure an individual retail trader has to follow before s/he can automate a trading strategy. (Your broker, on the other hand, may have all sorts of hoops for you to jump through in order to use their automation platform.) Last (but certainly not least) you will almost certainly lose money hand over fist attempting bid-ask scalping as an individual retail trader, whether your approach is algorithmic or not, automated or not. Why? Because the only way to succeed at bid-ask scalping is to (a) always be at/near the front of the queue when a price change occurs in your favor, and (b) always cancel your resting orders before they are executed when a price change occurs against you. Unless your algorithms are smarter than every other algorithm in the industry, an individual retail trader operating through a broker's trading platform cannot react quickly enough to succeed at either of those. You would have to eschew the broker and buy direct market access to even have a chance, and that's the point at which you're no longer a retail trader. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5acafc129ddd9f53bcfcca2fc88678d",
"text": "If you would like to use linux I suggest you to use KMyMoney http://kmymoney2.sourceforge.net/ It is based on gnucash but it is easier to use IMO",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0701647bcc7ed2194b069134c6b73b93",
"text": "Algorithmic trading essentially banks on the fact that a price will fluctuate in tiny amounts over short periods of time, meaning the volatility is high in that given time frame. As the time frame increases the efficiency of algorithmic trading decreases and proper investment strategies such as due diligence, stock screening, and technical analysis become the more efficient methods. Algorithms become less effective as the time frame increases due to the smoothing effect of volatility over time. Writing an algorithm that could predict future long-term prices would be an impossible feat because as the time frame is scaled up there are far less price fluctuations and trends (volatility smooths out) and so there is little to no benchmark for the formulas. An algorithm simply wouldn't make sense for a long-term position. A computer can't predict, say, the next quarter, an ousted CEO, a buyout, or anything else that could effect the price of the security, never mind the psychology behind it all. Vice versa, researching a company's fundamentals just to bank on a 0.25% daily swing would not be efficient. Tax advantages or not, it is the most efficient methods that are preferred for a given time-scale of trading.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8a75c5ba3947303b0d87d0aa43ae4ec1",
"text": "just start on quantopian. you wont know what you are doing. take someones algorithm, break it. figure out why its broken, fix it. figure out why it works. brainstorm ideas. code them. bugfix. realize you dont know enough. google search. . . profit thats what I did.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "64ed690f3374e934191b272f92f7ec65",
"text": "\"Yes we lose some client business to algos - specifically the DMA (direct market access) side of things. I haven't seen much HFT impact on what I do. I see the movement towards algos/automated trading and DMA over the next 5-10 years, and block traders like me going extinct eventually. But this all assumes liquidity, which is not there in the product I trade. So you still need a dealer who knows where the blocks \"\"live\"\". You want to buy 5% of that issue? okay good-luck trying to do that in the market. No algo will help you do that without moving the market against you.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d4dff35891ae13eeff3533f54e752a6d",
"text": "R/stockmarket is probably the best. When I have some free time I can test that strategy back as long as you would like in quantstrat, although the only problem with testing futures is joining the consolidated contracts, however I can test it with SPY as SPY returns and ES_F track very closely.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cef4fa3efefe86f85f703ff4e020704f",
"text": "\"If there is a very sudden and large collapse in the exchange rate then because algorithmic trades will operate very fast it is possible to determine “x” immediately after the change in exchange rate. All you need to know is the order book. You also need to assume that the algorithmic bot operates faster than all other market participants so that the order book doesn’t change except for those trades executed by the bot. The temporarily cheaper price in the weakened currency market will rise and the temporarily dearer price in the strengthened currency market will fall until the prices are related by the new exchange rate. This price is determined by the condition that the total volume of buys in the cheaper market is equal to the total volume of sells in the dearer market. Suppose initially gold is worth $1200 on NYSE or £720 on LSE. Then suppose the exchange rate falls from r=0.6 £/$ to s=0.4 £/$. To illustrate the answer lets assume that before the currency collapse the order book for gold on the LSE and NYSE looks like: GOLD-NYSE Sell (100 @ $1310) Sell (100 @ $1300) <——— Sell (100 @ $1280) Sell (200 @ $1260) Sell (300 @ $1220) Sell (100 @ $1200) ————————— buy (100 @ $1190) buy (100 @ $1180) GOLD-LSE Sell (100 @ £750) Sell (100 @ £740) ————————— buy (200 @ £720) buy (200 @ £700) buy (100 @ £600) buy (100 @ £550) buy (100 @ £530) buy (100 @ £520) <——— buy (100 @ £500) From this hypothetical example, the automatic traders will buy up the NYSE gold and sell the LSE gold in equal volume until the price ratio \"\"s\"\" is attained. By summing up the sell volumes on the NYSE and the buy volumes on the LSE, we see that the conditions are met when the price is $1300 and £520. Note 800 units were bought and sold. So “x” depends on the available orders in the order book. Immediately after this, however, the price of the asset will be subject to the new changes of preference by the market participants. However, the price calculated above must be the initial price, since otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exist.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "168531c9e0b56d3b16c6ef7be2d7f128",
"text": "**Here's a sneak peek of [/r/algotrading](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading) using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!** \\#1: [Python for Algorithmic Trading and Investing tutorial series](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/5selh0/python_for_algorithmic_trading_and_investing/) \\#2: [Stop calling it HFT](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/59syla/stop_calling_it_hft/) \\#3: [Introduction to Python for Econometrics, Statistics and Data Analysis](https://www.kevinsheppard.com/images/0/09/Python_introduction.pdf) | [6 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/algotrading/comments/5kthsv/introduction_to_python_for_econometrics/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47cea5f4c2bd6ef611d52e55975e7338",
"text": "I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5e944fc4e6256ce1315b98db28a6bae0
|
If I have all this stock just sitting there, how can I lend it out to people for short selling?
|
[
{
"docid": "089e09bc3048285825e573e2d87ea2c2",
"text": "\"One alternative strategy you may want to consider is writing covered calls on the stock you have \"\"just sitting there\"\". This will allow you to earn a return (the premium from the calls) without necessarily having to give up your holding. As a brief overview, \"\"options\"\" are derivatives that give the holder the right (or option) to buy or sell shares at a specified price. Holders of call options with a strike prike $x on a particular security have the right to purchase that security at the strike price $x. Conversely, holders of put options with a strike price of $x have the right to sell that security at the strike price $x. Always on the other side of a call or put option is a person that has sold the option, which is called \"\"writing\"\" the option. If this person writes a call option, then he will be obligated to sell a certain amount of stock (100 shares per contract) at the strike price if that option is exercised. A writer of a put option will be obligated to by 100 shares per contract at the strike price if that option is exercised. Covered calls involve writing call contracts on stock that you own. For example, say you own 100 shares of AAPL, and that AAPL is currently trading for $330. You decide to write a Jan 21, 2012 call on these shares at a strike price of $340, earning you a premium of say $300. Two things can now happen: if the price of AAPL is not at least $340 on January 21, then the options are \"\"out of the money\"\" and will expire unexercised (why exercise an option to buy at $340 when you can buy at the currently cheaper market price?). You keep your AAPL stock plus the $300 premium you earn. If, however, the price of AAPL is greater than $340, the option will be exercised and you will now be required to sell the shares you own at $340. You will earn a return of $10/share ($340-$330), plus the $300 premium from the call option. You still make out in the end, but have unfortunately incurred an opportunity cost, as had you not written the call option you would have been able to sell at the market price, which is higher than the $340 strike price. Covered calls are considered relatively safe and conservative, however the strategy is most effective for stocks that are expected to stay within a relatively narrow price range for the duration of the contract. They do provide one option of earning additional money on stocks you are currently holding, albeit at the risk of giving up some returns if the stock price rises above the strike price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09efe4f8b886aa27c8c94b8d5aeda27e",
"text": "Typically, as an individual, you can't just decide you want to lend out some securities. There is a lot of legalities that must take place in order to engage in such a transaction. It's a regulated industry and the contractual obligations that exist between borrower and seller are taken care of ahead of time by the broker with their client, prior to any actual transaction taking place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_lending I say typically, becuase I'm guessing that if you are a large enough client and own a substantial block of shares (I really mean a lot) you may be in the unique position of being able to lend out. I'm not sure what the logistics of this would look like, but I think the brokerage house would approach you and negotiate a borrowing rate. In that situation, you may negotiate lending to the the brokerage house and not necessarily directly to the borrower.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6aca9601d01cbbd5b9b2b273044f9b02",
"text": "You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ddf5fd3f79c3328ebe63da7b040a6570",
"text": "Lending of securities is done by institutional investors and mutual funds. The costs of dealing with thousands of individual investors, small share blocks and the various screw-ups and drama associated with each individual are too high. Like many exotic financial transactions, if you have to ask about it, you're probably not qualified to do it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "7b5989774eb16d6d1f84f1e7e0d30d22",
"text": "\"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e745f9e72315642dbae7074b2fb9b73c",
"text": "Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7edac9f8bfebc33c1fc885d2cac731e",
"text": "\"Diversify into leveraged short/bear ETFs and then you can quit your job and yell at your boss \"\"F you I'm short your house!\"\" edit: this is a quote from Greg Lippmann and mentioned in the book \"\"The Big Short\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3372ab2c637d4541156521cfb61737d7",
"text": "\"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dfca697bdc900ed9568f9ebb0b06581a",
"text": "It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b5ee4d84968b9181e9d4f40543a3afb6",
"text": "\"You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to \"\"lend\"\" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a \"\"new\"\" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if \"\"everyone\"\" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large \"\"short\"\" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a \"\"short squeeze\"\" that will drive the price much higher. And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't \"\"play games\"\" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e966816ac8117e9d36c6a1933be9cf27",
"text": "Any publicly traded financial instrument can be sold short, in theory. There are, however, many regulations associated with short sales of US equities that may prevent certain stocks from being sold short at certain times or through certain brokers. Some examples: the most basic requirement (this isn't a regulation, it's just the definition of a short sale) is that you or your broker must have access to someone willing to loan you his/her shares. If you are interested in shorting a security with few shares outstanding or low trade volume, there may simply not be enough people in the world willing to loan you theirs. Alternatively, there may be a shareholder willing to loan shares, but your broker may not have a relationship with the clearing house that shareholder is using. A larger/better/different broker might be able to help. threshold securities list - since 2005, each day certain securities are not allowed to be sold short based on their recent history of liquidity. Basically, if a certain number of transactions in a security have not been correctly settled over the past few days, then the SEC has reason to believe that short sales (which require extra transactions) are at higher risk of falling through. circuit breaker a.k.a. alternative uptick - since 2011, during certain market conditions, exchanges are now required to reject short sales for certain securities in order to prevent market crashes/market abuse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04e9b65ecb0708ce669b25577b90f895",
"text": "Brokers have the right to charge interest on any stock that they lend you. Since you borrowed the TSLA to short it, the owner of those shares can charge you interest until you return them. If you are not getting charged interest on some shares that you have borrowed to short, consider it generosity on the part of the lender.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69a7d8d3a3461498f918b0618011c9d9",
"text": "ELI5 - you sell something that you don't own with the expectation that it will go down, and then you buy it back when it goes down in order to lock in profit. You are charged fees to borrow the stock from someone else who currently owns it, and you also run the risk of the market going against you by going up.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b54bc28354a6cbbc8ecf92e5333beb93",
"text": "In terms of pricing the asset, this functions in exactly the same way as a regular sell, so bids will have to be hit to fill the trade. When shorting an equity, currency is not borrowed; the equity is, so the value of per share liability is equal to it's last traded price or the ask if the equity is illiquid. Thus when opening a short position, the asks offer nothing to the process except competition for your order getting filled. Part of managing the trade is the interest rate risk. If the asks are as illiquid as detailed in the question, it may be difficult even to locate the shares for borrowing. As a general rule, only illiquid equities or those in free fall may be temporarily unable for shorting. Interactive Brokers posts their securities financing availabilities and could be used as a proxy guide for your broker.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d75b5516f8f79c5b756a560d56d7a8cf",
"text": "But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21085de52a29bd061a17dba0d67f4927",
"text": "\"Basically, you either borrow money, or get other people to invest in your business by buying stock or something analogous. Sometimes you can get people to \"\"park\"\" money with you. For example, many people deposit money in a bank checking account. They don't get any interest or other profit from this, they just do it because the bank is a convenient place to store their money. The bank then loans some percentage of this money out and keeps the interest. I don't doubt that people have come up with more clever ways to use other people's money. Borrowing money for an investment or business venture is risky because if you lose money, you may be unable to pay it back. On the other hand, investors expect a share of the profit, not just a fixed interest rate.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f48f2f7e7684e11a35af00f9f7ed2509",
"text": "\"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3e0cc51cddecc1fe58524e39c9897ba2",
"text": "It would involve manual effort, but there is just a handful of exclusions, buy the fund you want, plug into a tool like Morningstar Instant X Ray, find out your $10k position includes $567.89 of defense contractor Lockheed Martin, and sell short $567.89 of Lockheed Martin. Check you're in sync periodically (the fund or index balance may change); when you sell the fund close your shorts too.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e3203580708f5da3c2fd8f0e3fa45ffb",
"text": "\"Every investment comes with a risk. There is also a bit of speculation involved. In there is an anticipation that one expects the value to go up in normal course of events. By your definition \"\"If I buy this equipment, I could produce more widgets, or sell more widgets,\"\" as an investment. Here again there is an anticipation that the widgets you sell will give you more return. If you are investing in stock/share, you are essentially holding a small portion of value in company and to that extent you are owining some equipment that is producing some widget .... Hence when you are purchasing Stocks, it would be looked as investment if you have done your home work and have a good plan of how you want to invest along with weiging the risk involved. However if you are investing only for the purpose of making quick bucks following so called hot tips, then you are not investing but speculating.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
c9e8af54cad3870a872adbee686d799c
|
Why would anyone buy a government bond?
|
[
{
"docid": "9c7e9fdd7c91b218a2c43b183b06dad3",
"text": "\"Great question. There are several reasons; I'm going to list the few that I can think of off the top of my head right now. First, even if institutional bank holdings in such a term account are covered by deposit insurance (this, as well as the amount covered, varies geographically), the amount covered is generally trivial when seen in the context of bank holdings. An individual might have on the order of $1,000 - $10,000 in such an account; for a bank, that's basically chump change, and you are looking more at numbers in the millions of dollars range. Sometimes a lot more than that. For a large bank, even hundreds of millions of dollars might be a relatively small portion of their holdings. The 2011 Goldman Sachs annual report (I just pulled a big bank out of thin air, here; no affiliation with them that I know of) states that as of December 2011, their excess liquidity was 171,581 million US dollars (over 170 billion dollars), with a bottom line total assets of $923,225 million (a shade under a trillion dollars) book value. Good luck finding a bank that will pay you 4% interest on even a fraction of such an amount. GS' income before tax in 2011 was a shade under 6.2 billion dollars; 4% on 170 billion dollars is 6.8 billion dollars. That is, the interest payments at such a rate on their excess liquidity alone would have cost more than they themselves made in the entire year, which is completely unsustainable. Government bonds are as guaranteed as deposit-insurance-covered bank accounts (it'll be the government that steps in and pays the guaranteed amount, quite possibly issuing bonds to cover the cost), but (assuming the country does not default on its debt, which happens from time to time) you will get back the entire amount plus interest. For a deposit-insured bank account of any kind, you are only guaranteed (to the extent that one can guarantee anything) the maximum amount in the country's bank deposit insurance; I believe in most countries, this is at best on the order of $100,000. If the bank where the money is kept goes bankrupt, for holdings on the order of what banks deal with, you would be extremely lucky to recover even a few percent of the principal. Government bonds are also generally accepted as collateral for the bank's own loans, which can make a difference when you need to raise more money in short order because a large customer decided to withdraw a big pile of cash from their account, maybe to buy stocks or bonds themselves. Government bonds are generally liquid. That is, they aren't just issued by the government, held to maturity while paying interest, and then returned (electronically, these days) in return for their face value in cash. Government bonds are bought and sold on the \"\"secondary market\"\" as well, where they are traded in very much the same way as public company stocks. If banks started simply depositing money with each other, all else aside, then what would happen? Keep in mind that the interest rate is basically the price of money. Supply-and-demand would dictate that if you get a huge inflow of capital, you can lower the interest rate paid on that capital. Banks don't pay high interest (and certainly wouldn't do so to each other) because of their intristic good will; they pay high interest because they cannot secure capital funding at lower rates. This is a large reason why the large banks will generally pay much lower interest rates than smaller niche banks; the larger banks are seen as more reliable in the bond market, so are able to get funding more cheaply by issuing bonds. Individuals will often buy bonds for the perceived safety. Depending on how much money you are dealing with (sold a large house recently?) it is quite possible even for individuals to hit the ceiling on deposit insurance, and for any of a number of reasons they might not feel comfortable putting the money in the stock market. Buying government bonds then becomes a relatively attractive option -- you get a slightly lower return than you might be able to get in a high-interest savings account, but you are virtually guaranteed return of the entire principal if the bond is held to maturity. On the other hand, it might not be the case that you will get the entire principal back if the bank paying the high interest gets into financial trouble or even bankruptcy. Some people have personal or systemic objections toward banks, limiting their willingness to deposit large amounts of money with them. And of course in some cases, such as for example retirement savings, it might not even be possible to simply stash the money in a savings account, in which case bonds of some kind is your only option if you want a purely interest-bearing investment.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f276d8ccfb139215f4493621ad208221",
"text": "\"Building on the excellent explanation by \"\"Miichael Kjörling\"\": Why would you rather \"\"term deposit\"\" your money in a bank and only earn interest of certain percentage but not not invest in stocks / real state and other opportunities where you will not only earn much higher dividends / profit but will have an opportunity for capital gains, multiple times like Apple's last 4 years(AAPL) ?? This is all down to risk / reward and risk taking. More risk = More profit opportunities / More Losses ( More Headache) Less risk(Govt BONDS) = Less profit / Less Losses (peace of mind)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a098f01bc8fa47e3f9160a018b52c89b",
"text": "There are a few other factors possible here: Taxes - Something you don't mention is what are the tax rates on each of those choices. If the 4% gain is taxed at 33% while the 3% government bond is taxed at 0% then it may well make more sense to have the government bond that makes more money after taxes. Potential changes in rates - Could that 4% rate change at any time? Yield curves are an idea here to consider where at times they can become inverted where short-term bonds yield more than long-term bonds due to expectations about rates. Some banks may advertise a special rate for a limited time to try to get more deposits and then change the rate later. Beware the fine print. Could the bond have some kind of extra feature on it? For example, in the US there are bonds known as TIPS that while the interest rate may be low, there is a principal adjustment that comes as part of the inflation adjustment that is part how the security is structured.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30036900c61f555fd1276bf5e10425c8",
"text": "\"Why would a bank buy government bonds? Why couldn't they just deposit their money in another bank instead? Generally, banks are limited by laws and regulations about how much they must set aside as reserves. Of the money they receive as deposits, they may loan a certain amount, but must keep some as a reserve (this is called \"\"fractional reserve banking\"\"). Different countries have a different amount that they must set aside in reserves. In countries where bank deposits are guaranteed, there is almost always some upper limit to how much is guaranteed. The amount of money that a bank would deposit in another bank would be far greater than the guarantee.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "e1153acc2c4b339189bdcf1f88d1b7e5",
"text": "When you buy a bond - you're giving a loan to the issuer. The interest rate on the bond is the interest rate on the loan. Usually (and this is also the case with the treasury bonds), the rate is fixed for the term of the loan. Thus, if the market rate for similar loans a year later is higher, the rate for the loan you gave - remains the same.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "55a7bd36c545fb5229e6d80425af33a9",
"text": "This is a perfect example of why bonds are confusing at first glance. Think about it this way... You buy a 30-year Russian Bond at 4%. An event happens that makes Russia risky to invest in. You want to buy another bond but fuck 4%, you and the rest of the market want 6% to compensate you for the risk. Now let's say you want to sell your 4% bond... Well you're going to have to drop the price of that bond in order for it to appeal to an investor that could go out and get a 6%. On a 30-year bond of that kind, you're looking at about 75% of what you bought it for. So to wrap it up, high bond yields are great for buyers that don't already own them, but bad for sellers who want to get rid of their old ones. It is the opposite intuition as stocks and almost everything else.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "27f2ea3f06194bf4fdbfa53f7af8e376",
"text": "It's the rate of return on new opportunities. The rate on existing projects isn't relevant. If you buy a bond 10 years ago when market Interest rates were 8%, and you have cash to buy another bond today, it is today's interest rates that are relevant, not the rates 10 years ago.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "37e3a40c3110ead79b3ce6cf7e63ac5e",
"text": "\"This is an easy question - The US government has demonstrated, repeatedly, that it **will** bail out the \"\"established\"\" auto industry. Tesla is very very cool, and may well bury the rest of the auto industry eventually, but they're not viewed as \"\"too big to fail\"\". Thus, Ford's bonds, even if *practically* \"\"junk\"\", are essentially backed by US Treasury; that's a pretty good deal, if you're looking for ultra low risk.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72040b1a5a0b194ef0f0940bf9acac4a",
"text": "Businesses have bond ratings just like people have credit ratings. It has become common for businesses to issue low rate bonds to show that they are strong, and leave the door open for further borrowing if they see an opportunity, such as an acquisition. One of the reasons Microsoft might want to build a credit reputation, is that people become familiar with their bonds and will purchase at lower rates when they want to borrow larger amounts of money, rather than assuming they are having financial issues which would lead them to demand higher rates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0ac679b83e91d72c1f7bfe9c8c334d3",
"text": "The U.S. treasury sells Treasury Bonds directly to consumers at: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7077d59b515eba495c5ceab28cfb7d7b",
"text": "I believe it’s because the old ticker machines only had 32 symbols making each symbol (1/32) a tick. (Back in the London Stock / Debt exchange in the 18th century) . The first ever government bond was issued by the Bank of England in 1693 to raise money to fund a war against France",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d7882c298cb26a09da949ad3a233ca7",
"text": "\"Its definitely not a stupid question. The average American has absolutely no idea how this process works. I know this might be annoying, but I'm answering without 100% certainty. The Fed would increase the money supply by buying back government bonds. This increased demand for bonds would raise their price and therefore lower the interest return that they deliver. Since U.S. treasury bonds are considered to be the very safest possible investment, their rate is the \"\"risk free\"\" rate upon which all other rates are based. So if the government buys billions of these bonds, that much money ends up in the hands of whoever sold them. These sellers are the large financial organizations that hold all of our money (banks and large investment vehicles). Now, since bond rates are lower, they have an incentive to put that money somewhere else. It goes into stocks and investment in business ventures. I'm less certain about how this turns into inflation that consumers will recognize. The short answer is that there is only a finite number of goods and services for us to buy. If the amount of money increases and there are still the same number of goods and services, the prices will increase slightly. Your question about printing money to pay off debts is too complex for me to answer. I know that the inflation dynamic does play a role. It makes debts easier to pay off in the future than they seem right now. However, causing massive inflation to pay off debts brings a lot of other problems.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0be4c290617e9cebd4b30f64ba5183f",
"text": "Because US bonds have had the prior impression of absolute invincibility and safety that has helped the dollar become the world's reserve currency and the United States borrow essentially at will. For the people that care what S&P says, the aura of invincibility is broken and it is conceivable, in SOME universe, for the US to default on its debt. This is of little practical importance on its own, but it's yet another signpost on the road to Chinese or European economic hegemony.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b33cbf727f004a084bf7f74b3a932a74",
"text": "\"Bingo, great question. I'm not the original poster, \"\"otherwiseyep\"\", but I am in the economics field (I'm a currency analyst for a Forex broker). I also happen to strongly disagree with his posts on the origin of money. To answer your question: the villagers are forced to use the new notes by their government, which demands that their income taxes be paid with the new currency. This is glossed over by otherwiseyep, which is unfortunate because it misleads people who are new to economics into believing the system of fiat money we have now is natural/emergent (created from the bottom-up) and not enforced from the top-down. Legal tender laws enforced in each nation's courts mean that all contracts can be settled in the local fiat currency, regardless of whether the receiver of the money wants a different currency. These laws (and the income tax) create an artificial \"\"root demand\"\" for the fiat currency, which is what gives it its value. We don't just *decide* that green paper has value. We are forced to accumulate it by the government. Fiat currencies are not money. We call them money, but in fact they are credit derivatives. Let me explain: A currency's value is inextricably tied to the nation's bond market. When investors buy a nation's bonds, they are loaning that nation money. The investor expects to receive interest payments on the bonds. The interest rate naturally rises as the bonds are perceived to be more-risky, and naturally falls as the bonds are perceived to be less-risky. The risk comes from the fact that governments sometimes get really close to not being able to pay their interest payments. They get into so much debt, and their tax-revenue shrinks as their economy worsens. That drives up the interest rate they must pay when they issue new bonds (ie add debt). So the value of a currency comes from tax revenue (interest payments). If a government misses an interest payment, or doesn't fully pay it, the market considers this a \"\"credit event\"\" and investors sell their bonds and freak out. Selling bonds has the effect of driving interest rates even higher, so it's a vicious cycle. If the government defaults, there's massive deflation because all debt denominated in that currency suddenly skyrockets due to the higher interest rates. This creates a chain of cascading defaults - one person defaults, which leads another person, and another, and so on. Everyone was in debt to everyone else, somewhere along the chain. In order to counteract this deflation (which ultimately leads to the kind of depression you saw in 1930's US), governments will print print print, expanding the credit supply via the banks. So this is what you see happening today - banks are constantly being bailed out all over the Western world, governments are cutting programs to be able to meet their interest payments, and central banks are expanding credit supplies and bailing out their buddies. Real money has ZERO counterparty risk. What is counterparty risk? It's just the risk that the guy who owes you something won't honor his debt. Gold and silver and salt and oil aren't IOU's. So they can be real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "845477d89e3c5ff7b89554405e5d8b21",
"text": "\"I don't like buying individual bonds for my own portfolio. I actually used to buy long-term government strip bonds (Canadas or provincial bonds) but I stopped. Here are some reasons why: My broker allows me to purchase bonds via their web application. However, to sell a bond, I had to call in to the fixed-income trading desk. That was inconvenient. (But your broker may be different.) Bonds don't typically trade on a formal exchange. So, there's no cheap & easy way (as far as I know) to get an independent quote for a bond's value – I had to trust what my broker said my bond was worth when assessing my portfolio performance. I asked my broker once how they arrive at the \"\"market value\"\" shown – i.e. whether it was last bid, ask, or actual trade – and I was told they use a third party bond quotation / valuation information provider for the data, and that quotes are an estimate of what the bond would be worth, based on similar bonds. I quickly learned that wasn't the value I could actually get when selling it: When you're dealing with your broker to buy and sell bonds, you're likely dealing with theirs or a related investment bank which makes a market for specific issues of bonds. While I wasn't being charged an explicit commission to buy or sell bonds, it was evident the broker makes money off the spread: That is, the difference between what they would be willing to sell a bond for and what they would be willing to buy that same bond for. They will buy your bond back from you cheaper than what they could turn around and sell it to somebody else for. That's why they don't charge an explicit commission... it's built in and hidden! Anyway, when I finally discovered my broker would seldom actually offer me the \"\"market value\"\" quoted for my bonds (typically, it would be bought back for a few percent less than it were theoretically worth), I gave up. I don't think bonds simply are liquid enough, nor the costs transparent enough for retail investors. (Or maybe it's just me :-) However, I do think bonds remain an important part of a diversified portfolio: Bonds ought to be represented in a diversified portfolio using low-cost bond index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds. Since these funds buy & sell bonds in large quantities, they get a better deal on the spreads. So, while you do pay an explicit management fee for a fund, you are probably saving since you're not getting shafted on the spreads.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "198b2f9e139ecf91225ad6f74321a27c",
"text": "China actively SELLS US Treasuries. http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424052748704097904577257030958775246.html The Chinese are not stupid. Why the fuck would someone buy a 2 year at .2% when inflation is over 1% PER YEAR? So insolvent banks can park collateral at Central Banks for cash. This is why the balance sheets of developed world nations have exploded since 2008. http://www.alsosprachanalyst.com/economy/charting-central-banks-balance-sheets.html edited: for unnecessary rudeness",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a67e97c315357cc1ac6335a6f29b8e79",
"text": "\"There are tax free bonds in the United States. They are for things like public housing and other urban projects. They are tax free for everyone but only rich people buy them. Why? The issue is that the tax free nature of the bond is included in its yield. So rather than yielding say a 5% return, they figure that the owner is getting 20% off due to not paying taxes. As a result, they only give a 4% return but are as risky as a 5% return investment. Net result, only rich people invest in tax free bonds. \"\"Rich\"\" is defined here to mean people paying a 20% tax on long term investment returns. Or take the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction, which has been in the news recently. Again, it is technically open to everyone. But there is also a standard deduction that is open to everyone. For the typical family, state and local taxes might be 5% of income. So for a family making $100k a year, that's $5k. The same family can take a $13k or so standard deduction instead of itemizing. So why would they take the smaller deduction? As a practical matter, two groups take the SALT deduction. People rich enough to pay more than $13k in state and local taxes and people who also take the mortgage interest deduction. So it helps a lot of people who are rich quite a bit. And it helps a few middle class people some. But if you are lower middle class with a $30k mortgage on a tiny house and paying 4% interest, then that's only $1200 a year. Add in property taxes of $3000 and SALT of $2.8k and that's only $7k. Even if the person gives $3k to charity, the $13k deduction is a lot better and requires less paperwork. Contrast that with someone who has $500k mortgage at 3.6% interest. That's $18k in interest alone. Add in a SALT of $7k and property taxes of $50k, and there's $75k of itemized deductions, much better than $13k. Now a $7k donation to charity is entirely deductible. And even after the mortgage interest deduction goes away, the other $64k remains.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "160c44a324bab3abc239fa3ebc2a53bf",
"text": "Yes, the Fed has made a point of buying up longer-term bonds to push down rates on that part of the curve. That's not an indication that they're having problems selling Treasuries, in fact far from it. But apparently there's no demand for Treasuries and Bloomberg is just making up lies to help get Obama reelected? >Investors are plowing into Treasuries (USB2YBC) at a record pace as the supply of the world’s safest securities dwindles, ensuring yields will stay low regardless of whether the Federal Reserve undertakes more stimulus to fight unemployment. Buyers bid $3.19 for each dollar of the $538 billion in notes and bonds sold this year, the most since the government began releasing the data in 1992 and on pace to beat the high of $3.04 in 2011. The net amount of Treasuries available will decline by 30 percent once proceeds from maturing securities are reinvested, according to data from CRT Capital Group LLC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-09/record-treasury-demand-keeps-yields-low-as-supply-shrinks.html",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "52ec3ac54366f8034c62e3e58a52a015",
"text": "Running a fiscal deficit means a government is spending more money than it is taking in as taxes, fees, penalties, fines, etc, with the extra money that is being spent being borrowed by selling bonds to willing buyers. Interest paid to said buyers is another government expense in future years, and of course, the bonds must ultimately be redeemed and the buyers paid off. The buyers of the bonds must have some confidence that they will get the interest they have been promised as well as be paid off ultimately. As the government's indebtedness increases, buyers are likely to demand higher interest rates as inducements to buy the bonds. And so it goes...",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
981ad0898ea0bc6bba6b61f7f3df0f45
|
Stock market transaction cost calculation
|
[
{
"docid": "464e3ae477e3950b605f238bc0de4589",
"text": "\"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b26146f4690f6340fd7e29cdd4f8fd28",
"text": "Here's the purely mathematical answer for which fees hurt more. You say taking the money out has an immediate cost of $60,000. We need to calculate the present value of the future fees and compare it against that number. Let's assume that the investment will grow at the same rate either with or without the broker. That's actually a bit generous to the broker, since they're probably investing it in funds that in turn charge unjustifiable fees. We can calculate the present cost of the fees by calculating the difference between: As it turns out, this number doesn't depend on how much we should expect to get as investment returns. Doing the math, the fees cost: 220000 - 220000 * (1-0.015)^40 = $99809 That is, the cost of the fees is comparable to paying nearly $100,000 right now. Nearly half the investment! If there are no other options, I strongly recommend taking the one-time hit and investing elsewhere, preferably in low-cost index funds. Details of the derivation. For simplicity, assume that both fees and growth compound continuously. (The growth does compound continuously. We don't know about the fees, but in any case the distinction isn't very significant.) Fees occur at a (continuous) rate of rf = ln((1-0.015)^4) (which is negative), and growth occurs at rate rg. The OPs current principal is P, and the present value of the fees over time is F. We therefore have the equation P e^((rg+rf)t) = (P-F) e^(rg t) Solving for F, we notice that the e^rg*t components cancel, and we obtain F = P - P e^(rf t) = P - P e^(ln((1-0.015)^4) t) = P - P (1-0.015)^(4t)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc95981f0c9cdf734451c8280615c376",
"text": "The business and investment would be shown on separate parts of the tax return. (An exception to this is where an investment is related and part of your business, such as futures trading on business products) On the business side of it, you would show the transfer to the stocks as a draw from the business, the amount transferred would then be the cost base of the investment. For taxes, you only have to report gains or losses on investments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e6f8c74a0902a1fa88280961a409867b",
"text": "This link does it ok: http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before. You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%. The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically. To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp(). This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized. There are ~240 trading days each year. You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc. This is your number for sigma. This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3d1d75dd73777cd7cae0bd40897c4005",
"text": "What I do have is this (sample only): Stock X: Average Price of all I purchased before = 80 Total Shares = 200 So if Stock X's price today is 100 how do I know how much my average price will be? Using your sample if you buy 100 new shares and the price is 85 for the purpose of this example your previous total cost is $16,000 ($80 average cost * 200 shares). With the new example you are adding $8500 to your total cost (100 new shares * $85 example cost per share) that gives us a total cost of $24,500 and 300 shares. $24,500/300 gives us an average cost of $81.67 per share. As long as you have the average cost and the number of shares you can calculate a new average without knowing what the price was for each transaction. It may still become important to find the price information for tax purposes if you do not sell all of those shares at once and use FIFO for your taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e30ca5efd5d21101a2e6d781d8bcf48",
"text": "Some personal finance packages can track basis cost of individual purchase lots or fractions thereof. I believe Quicken does, for example. And the mutual funds I'm invested in tell me this when I redeem shares. I can't vouch for who/what would make this visible at times other than sale; I've never had that need. For that matter I'm not sure what value the info would have unless you're going to try to explicitly sell specific lots rather than doing FIFO or Average accounting.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "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": "6f636af3b117e19283f5ff7b586eae22",
"text": "\"As Kurt Vonnegut said, the way to make money is to be there when large amounts of money are changing hands and take a little for yourself; they'll never notice. That's what transaction costs are: when a fund buys or sells stocks a bit of the money goes to the folks who handle the transaction. When you personally buy or sell stocks a bit of the money goes to the broker in the form of a fee. (and, no, no fee brokers don't work for free; they just hide the fee by not getting you the best possible price). So frequent transactions (i.e., higher portfolio turnover) mean that those little bits of money are going to the intermediaries more often. That's what \"\"higher transaction costs\"\" refers to -- the costs are higher than in a fund that buys and sells less often. In short, those higher transaction costs are a consequence of higher turnover; nothing nefarious there.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f40ce647ec1934ec570d35784baa2775",
"text": "James Roth provides a partial solution good for stock picking but let's speed up process a bit, already calculated historical standard deviations: Ibbotson, very good collection of research papers here, examples below Books",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "92d9ad3a393cd412ba4c0ac770bd3171",
"text": "\"When margin is calculated as the equity percentage of an account, the point at which a broker will forcibly liquidate is typically called \"\"maintenance margin\"\". In the US, this is 25% for equities. To calculate the price at which this will occur, the initial and maintenance margin must be known. The formula for a long with margin is: and for a short where P_m is the maintenance margin price, P_i is the initial margin price, m_i is the initial margin rate, and m_m is the maintenance margin rate. At an initial margin of 50% and a maintenance margin of 25%, a long equity may fall by 1/3 before forced liquidation, a short one may rise by 50%. This calculation can become very complex with different asset classes with differing maintenance margins because the margin debt is applied to all securities collectively.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5e7a7044a927ec8ab40b5f4398ddd8cb",
"text": "Generally speaking. 1. Take the position size / average daily volume. 2. Multiply that number by 10 or whatever 1/whatever % of volume you think you can execute, ( you can at best acct for 10 percent of traded volume on a day). 3. You now have days until liquidation (x) 4. Take the days until liquidation sample the return over time x. I.e. if days until liquidation is 10, you would sample 10 day returns. 5. Calculate the distribution characteristics of this window (mean, var, skew, kurt) and calculate VaR based on some confidence. You can now have a liquidity risk expected loss and a VaR. If position is on margin don't forget to add the interest cost. Note: Instead of taking 10 day return, you can take the 10 day VWAP and calculate return between Open and 10 day vwap.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e99f14ffed8f409ea84518036cfbd1d",
"text": "You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0a671734512500e733a71357cfd6b3b",
"text": "If you aren't familiar with Norbert's Gambit, it's worth looking at. This is a mechanism using a Canadian brokerage account to simultaneously execute one stock trade in CAD and one in USD. The link I provided claims that it only starts potentially making sense somewhere in the 10,000+ range.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "30027b1c4f087c6113a9f335c856edd9",
"text": "For various reasons, real estate prices exhibit far more memory than stock prices. The primary reason for this is that real estate is much less liquid. Transaction costs for stock trading are on the order of 10 basis points (0.1%), whereas a real estate transaction will typically have total costs (including title, lawyers, brokers, engineers, etc.) of around 5% of the amount of the transaction. A stock transaction can be executed in milliseconds, whereas real estate transactions typically take months. Thus today's behavior is a much better indicator of future price behavior for real estate than for stocks.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "be9423a0060236498153c933d648c914",
"text": "\"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f35493317b0fa9767a0827ede4a4505",
"text": "I appreciate it. I didn't operate under selling the asset year five but other than that I followed this example. I appreciate the help. These assignments are just poorly laid out. Financial management also plays on different calculation interactions so it is difficult for me to easily identify the intent at times. Thanks again.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
3c1e6f3d427648d5216e40fef3549b66
|
What is the meaning of “writing put options”?
|
[
{
"docid": "9582b2be22184ae3b4a914c28fee2f86",
"text": "\"Write means sell to open. It is called that because options writers are creating (i.e. writing) new contracts. No such thing as \"\"reading\"\" an option.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "927d5f9fbd22d65dbc8a7844108d261e",
"text": "Apple closed Friday 9/23 at $403.40. This is what the Puts look like, note the 2013 expiration. (The rest is hypothetical, I am not advising this.) As a fan of Apple and feeling the stock may stay flat but won't tank, I sell you the $400 put for $64.65. In effect I am saying that I am ready willing and able to buy aapl for $400 (well, $40,000 for 100 shares) and I have enough margin in my account to do so, $20,000. If Apple keeps going up, I made my $6465 (again it's 100 shares) but no more. If it drops below $400, I only begin to lose money if it goes below $335.35. You, the put buyer are betting it will drop by this amount (more than 15% from today) and are willing to pay the price for this Put today.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c29eb37622f8ff8f812fa6e1fd565fc",
"text": "\"Writing a put for a stock means you are selling the right to sell you stock. Simply put (er no pun intended), \"\"writing put options\"\" means you are selling somebody else the right (a contract) to sell YOU a specific stock at a specific price before a specific date. I imagine the word \"\"write\"\" to refer to the physical act of creating a contract. The specific price is called the STRIKE and the specific date is the EXPIRATION. By \"\"writing a put\"\", you are agreeing to purchase the stock at a particular price (the STRIKE price) before the expiration. You get paid a fee, the \"\"premium\"\", for agreeing to purchase the stock at the strike price if asked to. If the holder of the contract decides to make you buy the stock at the strike price, you have to do it. If the stock never dips below the strike price, then the holder of the put contract (a contract you wrote), will never exercise their right because they'd lose money. But if the stock drops to zero, you could potentially lose up to your strike price (times the number of shares at stake), if the holder of the contract decides to exercise. Therefore, \"\"writing puts\"\" is a LONG position, meaning you stand to gain if the stock goes up. FYI - \"\"LONG\"\" refers direction (UP!), not duration.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04d8de88ae4fadf7e848297b40c518e",
"text": "\"Writing options means \"\"selling\"\" options and \"\"put\"\" options are contracts to sell a defined security (the underlying), at a specific date (expiration date) and at a specific price (strike price). So, writing put options simply mean selling to others contracts to sell. Your profit is limited to the premium but your loss may be unlimited in a falling market.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b7e7b0b6b6cd92d8e2039afbaf9c15ed",
"text": "Suppose you're writing a put with a strike price of 80. Say the share's(underlying asset) price goes down to 70. So the holder of the put will exercise the option. Ie he has a 'right to sell' a share worth 70 for rs 80. Whereas a put option writer has an 'obligation to buy' at rs 80 a share trading at rs 70. Always think from the perspective of the holder. If the holder exercises the option, the writer will suffer a loss. Maximum loss he suffers will be the break even FSP, which is Strike price reduced by the premium paid.. If he doesn't exercise the option the writer will make a profit, which can maximum be the put premium received.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "3681fe7e8e5344a3021f0058d20ec485",
"text": "\"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c730a794b925cb372bb786761aaee5ff",
"text": "There is such a thing as a buy-write, which is buying a stock and writing a (covered) call simultaneously. But as far as I know brokers charge two commissions, one stock trade and one options trade so you're not going to save on commissions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fcd9990896be0b5c627ec5da25a4af72",
"text": "I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.",
"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": "fda9a91d3fb54ee3fef46a10aa637306",
"text": "The only problem with writing puts is that you need to buy the futures, and at the moment at least that is what I am trying to avoid (trying to be as frugal with my investing dollars). I will however consider that strategy, since it does make sense.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "12a44f72bcc6e299b061b76187cd394b",
"text": "\"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d0205be6f073238c2f232152d9fc9bf5",
"text": "See how you can only make the premium amount but your risk is the same as holding the stock when writing a put option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cfe07a5e0fcc828bbcbcfe452ecd4d1b",
"text": "The risk situation of the put option is the same whether you own the stock or not. You risk $5 and stand to gain 0 to $250 in the period before expiration (say $50 if the stock reaches $200 and you sell). Holding the stock or not changes nothing about that. What is different is the consideration as to whether or not to buy a put when you own the stock. Without an option, you are holding a $250 asset (the stock), and risking that money. Should you sell and miss opportunity for say $300? Or hold and risk loss of say $50 of your $250? So you have $250 at risk, but can lock in a sale price of $245 for say a month by buying a put, giving you opportunity for the $300 price in that month. You're turning a risk of losing $250 (or maybe only $50 more realistically) into a risk of losing only $5 (versus the price your stock would get today).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2591b8960a7aec0e1f980a946309cc61",
"text": "Oh it is ok. I was a little confused, because I tried to read up on future options and options as much as possible, and to still get question marks worried me. I mean to my knowledge, options can be traded as is without margin, while futures do need margin. If you are a starving artist, you can see the draw of not having to have margin to keep track of, but be able at the same time to learn about another market to trade in (commodities).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "965551e65243b1e8238a4be558a24f73",
"text": "\"Firstly \"\"Most option traders don't want to actually buy or sell the underlying stock.\"\" THIS IS COMPLETELY UTTERLY FALSE Perhaps the problem is that you are only familiar with the BUY side of options trading. On the sell side of options trading, an options desk engages in DELTA HEDGING. When we sell an option to a client. We will also buy an appropriate amount of underlying to match the delta position of the option. During the life time of the option. We will readjust our hedge position whenever the delta changes (those who follow Black Scholes will know that normally that comes from (underlying) price changes). However, we lose money on each underlying change (we have to cross the bid-ask spread for each trade). That is why we lose money when there is volatility. That is why we are said to be \"\"short VEGA\"\" or \"\"short volatility\"\". So one way to think about \"\"buying\"\" options, is that you are paying someone to execute a specific trading strategy. In general, those who sell options, are also happy to buy options back (at a discount of course, so we make a profit). But when doing so, we need to unroll our hedging position, and that again incurs a cost (to us, the bank). Finally. Since this is \"\"money\"\" stackexchange rather than finance. You are most likely referring to \"\"warrants\"\" rather than \"\"options\"\", which are listed on stock exchanges. The exchange in most regions give us very specific and restrictive regulations that we must abide by. One very common one is that we MUST always list a price which we are willing to buy the warrants back at (which may not be an unreasonable spread from the sell price). Since an Option is a synthetically created investment instrument, when we buy back the Option from the investor, we simply unwind the underlying hedging positions that we booked to synthesize the Options with. Source: I've worked 2 years on a warrant desk, as a desk developer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dc97090be3ab27139fd98f9ac08e954b",
"text": "\"You are likely making an assumption that the \"\"Short call\"\" part of the article you refer to isn't making: that you own the underlying stock in the first place. Rather, selling short a call has two primary cases with considerably different risk profiles. When you short-sell (or \"\"write\"\") a call option on a stock, your position can either be: covered, which means you already own the underlying stock and will simply need to deliver it if you are assigned, or else uncovered (or naked), which means you do not own the underlying stock. Writing a covered call can be a relatively conservative trade, while writing a naked call (if your broker were to permit such) can be extremely risky. Consider: With an uncovered position, should you be assigned you will be required to buy the underlying at the prevailing price. This is a very real cost — certainly not an opportunity cost. Look a little further in the article you linked, to the Option strategies section, and you will see the covered call mentioned there. That's the kind of trade you describe in your example.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "524afee62b9dc9c8606c83b85562b9b0",
"text": "Put options are basically this. Buying a put option gives you the right but not the obligation to sell the underlying security at a certain date for a fixed price, no matter its current market value at that time. However, markets are largely effective, and the price of put options is such that if you bought them to cover you the whole time, you would on average pay more than you'd gain from the underlying security. There is no such thing as a risk-free investment.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ffa363ff5c09f42ad29c604cfe28039c",
"text": "The option is exercised. The option is converted into shares. That is an optional condition in closing that contract, hence why they are called options.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e1c1d248918ff767562b5549d2a3218",
"text": "\"According to Yahoo, AAPL was trading at $113.26 at 1:10 PM on 11/13/15, which is the approximate time of your option quote. You provided a quote for AAPL at 4:15, and the stock happened to keep going down most of the that afternoon. To make a sensible comparison, you need to take contemporary prices on both the stock and the option. The quote on the option also shows the \"\"price\"\" being outside of the bid-ask range, which suggests that the option was trading thinly and that the last price occurred sometime earlier in the day. If you use a price in the bid-ask range ($21.90-$22.30) and use the price of AAPL at the time of the put quote, you'll come up with a price that's much closer to your expectation.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2fec6683380e14b8eb39ce4db93a54db",
"text": "A specific strategy to make money on a potentially moderately decreasing stock price on a dividend paying stock is to write covered calls. There is a category on Money.SE about covered call writing, but in summary, a covered call is a contract to sell the shares at a set price within a defined time range; you gain a premium (called the time value) which, when I've done it, can be up to an additional 1%-3% return on the position. With this strategy you're collecting dividends and come out with the best return if the stock price stays in the middle: if the price does not shoot up high enough that your option is called, you still own the stock and made extra return; if the price drops moderately, you may still be positive.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
ed2984d698f68a74758ef707ea55897d
|
Missing 401(k) dividends
|
[
{
"docid": "8f94c2aedfcae7a40f3f9d639c2e702a",
"text": "Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ce25b1830452e713b8ff2b84a9d71f11",
"text": "\"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\"\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\"\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \"\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\"\" was difficult to get from my \"\"Personal Representative\"\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cf53539bda07f5efe80c4aa08b8b8f3",
"text": "The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2164e8c58b0d0fb51e5b3005e5e0fb0b",
"text": "Okay thanks, let's hope it's a relatively painless process to correct my mistake! Really odd that my 401(k)s are traditional, I was so sure they weren't. Maybe it's better then to open up a traditional IRA alongside the Roth, use that for rollovers, and just kick a few bucks into the Roth on occasion?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "38bdbd4c2225ed3344f2d36eb24aa6d8",
"text": "You can use a tool like WikiInvest the advantage being it can pull data from most brokerages and you don't have to enter them manually. I do not know how well it handles dividends though.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c90632e5a5534cfb491f783708f5b0c9",
"text": "There are many stocks that don't have dividends. Their revenue, growth, and reinvestment help these companies to grow, and my share of such companies represent say, one billionth of a growing company, and therefore worth more over time. Look up the details of Berkshire Hathaway. No dividend, but a value of over $100,000. Not a typo, over one hundred thousand dollars per share.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "863caebe164e5bd922034f24c3029475",
"text": "\"New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an \"\"ADR Pass-Through Fee\"\". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f3e9c74845865a96e9d863870771b7e",
"text": "Two more esoteric differences, related to the same cause... When you have an outstanding debit balance in a margin the broker may lend out your securities to short sellers. (They may well be able to lend them out even if there's no debit balance -- check your account agreement and relevant regulations). You'll never know this (there's no indication in your account of it) unless you ask, and maybe not even then. If the securities pay out dividends while lent out, you don't get the dividends (directly). The dividends go to the person who bought them from the short-seller. The short-seller has to pay the dividend amount to his broker who pays them to your broker who pays them to you. If the dividends that were paid out by the security were qualified dividends (15% max rate) the qualified-ness goes to the person who bought the security from the short-seller. What you received weren't dividends at all, but a payment-in-lieu of dividends and qualified dividend treatment isn't available for them. Some (many? all?) brokers will pay you a gross-up payment to compensate you for the extra tax you had to pay due to your qualified dividends on that security not actually being qualified. A similar thing happens if there's a shareholder vote. If the stock was lent out on the record date to establish voting eligibility, the person eligible to vote is the person who bought them from the short-seller, not you. So if for some reason you really want/need to vote in a shareholder vote, call your broker and ask them to journal the shares in question over to the cash side of your account before the record date for determining voting eligibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c5e35acc0e3a733ab09281a4287d51ee",
"text": "The 401(k) has the advantage that you don't pay any tax until you take it out. That lets the gains multiple. Two examples: If any of your stocks pay dividends, these are directly taxable if you don't have a 401(k). In the 401(k), the full dividends accumulate and are reinvested. If you sell any stocks and get capital gains, they are also directly taxable in a normal account. Having said that, if you don't get any match, I would consider doing a 50/50; put half of your money in the 401(k), in something simple like an index fund, and invest the rest. That's assuming you have an index fund available in your 401(k).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6be831b52115cf6dcbf224d2b4ed272",
"text": "Dividends from mutual funds reduce the share value the day they are distributed. Mutual funds do this at least once a year, or more times in the year if there are a lot of gains, to pass through taxable gains to individuals who may have lower tax rates or deferred tax accounts such as you. This is meaningful for investors who hold the mutual funds in taxable accounts, but immaterial for 401ks. Your account balance is not affected if you don't get the distribution before roll over.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b673df4129fb2dab004b655c4a601aa",
"text": "No. As a rule, the dividends you see in the distribution table are what you'll receive before paying any taxes. Tax rates differ between qualified and unqualified/ordinary dividends, so the distribution can't include taxes because tax rates may differ between investors. In my case I hold it in an Israeli account but the tax treaty between our countries still specifies 25% withheld tax This is another example of why tax rates differ between investors. If I hold SPY too, my tax rate will be very different because I don't hold it in an account like yours, so the listed dividend couldn't include taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2985abf51365c0748e889c837755967",
"text": "I question the reliability of the information you received. Of course, it's possible the former 401(k) provider happened to charge lower expense ratios on its index funds than other available funds and lower the new provider's fees. There are many many many financial institutions and fees are not fixed between them. I think the information you received is simply an assumptive justification for the difference in fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0943e45e3c60536cea418a843e1c6250",
"text": "There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "caf4adfd21859c172926d3c5efe935fd",
"text": "\"You're missing a very important thing: YEAR END values in (U.S.) $ millions unless otherwise noted So 7098 is not $7,098. That would be a rather silly amount for Coca Cola to earn in a year don't you think? I mean, some companies might happen upon random small income amounts, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume they'll earn (or lose) millions or billions, not thousands. This is a normal thing to do on reports like this; it's wasteful to calculate to so many significant digits, so they divide everything by 1000 or 1000000 and report at that level. You need to look on the report (usually up top left, but it can vary) to see what factor they're dividing by. Coca Cola's earnings per share are $1.60 for FY 2014, which is 7,098/4450 (use the whole year numbers, not the quarter 4 numbers; and here they're both in millions, so they divide out evenly). You also need to understand that \"\"Dividend on preferred stock\"\" is not the regular dividend; I don't see it explicitly called out on the page you reference. They may not have preferred stock and/or may not pay dividends on it in excess of common stock (or at all).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d304e33e18f5f22766283a4d16a7ca8b",
"text": "http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=EDV+Historical+Prices shows this which matches Vanguard: Mar 24, 2014 0.769 Dividend Your download link doesn't specify dates which makes me wonder if it is a cumulative distribution or something else as one can wonder how did you ensure that the URL is specifying to list only the most recent distribution and not something else. For example, try this URL which specifies date information in the a,b,c,d,e,f parameters: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=EDV&a=00&b=29&c=2014&d=05&e=16&f=2014&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1e55b9e38a7bc2e8300c9d6d1f3214e7",
"text": "As I commented, there's confusion on withholding. The 20% pertains to 401(k) accounts, not IRAs.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
d930c33cc44588ce2bd4bcf70ffc1be4
|
Option on an option possible? (Have a LEAP, put to me?)
|
[
{
"docid": "3e9ed8d204d91a4d492322f8b343b568",
"text": "I understand what you're asking for (you want to write options ON call options... essentially the second derivative of the underlying security), and I've never heard of it. That's not to say it doesn't exist (I'm sure some investment banker has cooked something like this up at some point), but if it does exist, you wouldn't be able to trade it as easily as you can a put or a LEAP. I'm also not sure you'd actually want to buy such a thing - the amount of leverage would be enormous, and you'd need a massive amount of margin/collateral. Additionally, a small downward movement in the stock price could wipe out the entire value of your option.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa31bcf6bbf9f52810afac727898f14b",
"text": "\"I can sell a PUT on it a bit out of the money, and I seemingly \"\"win\"\" either way: i.e. make money on selling the PUT, and either I get to pick up the stock cheaper if XYZ goes down, or the PUT expires worthless. In 2008, I see a bank stock (pick one) trading at $100. I buy that put from you, a $90 strike, and pay you $5 for the option. The bank blew up, and trades for a dollar. I then buy the $1 share and sell it to you for $90. You made $500 on the sale of the put, but lost $8900 when it went bad. You don't win either way, there is a chart you can construct (or a table) showing your profit or loss for every price of the underlying stock. When selling a put, you need to know what happens if the stock goes to zero since the odds of such an occurrence is non-trivial. A LEAP is already an option. With the new coding scheme for options, I'm not sure there's really any distinction between a LEAP and standard option, the LEAP just starts with a long-till-expiration time. There are no options on LEAPS that I am aware of, as they are options already.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1f96225870d0c006f8484d9d5ae1d38d",
"text": "There are options on options. Some derivative instruments assets ARE options (some ETFs), and you are able to buy shares of those ETFs OR options on those ETFs. Secondly, options are just a contract, so you just need to write one up and find someone to buy the contract. The only thing is that the exchange won't facilitate it, so you will have liquidity issues. What you want to do is a diagonal / calendar spread. Buy the back month option, sell the front month option, this isn't a foreign concept and nobody is stopping you. Since you have extra leverage on your LEAPS, then you just need to change the balancing of your short leg to match the amount of leverage the leaps will provide. (so instead of buying,selling 1:1, you need to buy one leap and perhaps sell 5 puts)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3f43bf7e07ab2c5813cfe16dd48110f7",
"text": "There are many stategies with options that you have listed. The one I use frequently is buy in the money calls and sell at the money staddles. Do this ONLY on stocks you do not mind owning because that is the worse thing that can happen and if you like the company you stand less of a chance of being scared out of the trade. It works well with high quality resonable dividend paying stocks. Cat, GE, Mrk, PM etc. Good luck",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8fc5d7213656225169f2da388b7c216e",
"text": "As with most strategies there are pros and cons associated with this approach: Advantages of using LEAPS: Disadvantages of using LEAPS: Read more about it in great detail on my blog: http://www.thebluecollarinvestor.com/leaps-and-covered-call-writing-2/",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "31217d7752953f3db3788b2a56bfe7e5",
"text": "\"Has anyone done this before? I'm sure someone has, but it doesn't completely remove any price risk. Suppose you buy it at 10 and it drops to 5? Then you've lost 5 on the stock and have no realized gain on the option (although you could buy back the option cheaply and exist the position). To completely remove price risk you have to delta hedge. At ATM option generally has a delta of 50%, meaning that the value of the option changes 0.50 for every $1 change in the stock. The downside to delta hedging is you can spend a lot on transaction fees and employ a lot of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" transactions with a highly volatile stock.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a066c38b2279b858bf2dd9cf934636d0",
"text": "You can't know. It's not like every stock has options traded on it, so until you either see the options listed or a company announcement that option will trade on a certain date, there's no way to be sure.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "237b1c1a094558c6992a1cef49690e5c",
"text": "\"Defining parity as \"\"parity is the amount by which an option is in the money\"\", I'd say there may be an arbitrage opportunity. If there's a $50 strike on a stock valued at $60 that I can buy for less than $10, there's an opportunity. Keep in mind, options often show high spreads, my example above might show a bid/ask of $9.75/$10.25, in which case the last trade of $9.50 should be ignored in favor of the actual ask price you'd pay. Mispricing can exist, but in this day and age, is far less likely.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "373aaa76ddefb99efd46f7e7cf4a87cc",
"text": "It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a8773cf895e6699a6ed396a2ff66f05",
"text": "Yes, if there is liquidity you can sell your option to someone else as a profit. This is what the majority of option trading volume is used for: speculative trading with leverage.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21ad8c178fcaf9a290e700ecbcbab79c",
"text": "I have no idea if Wikivest can handle options, but I've been pretty satisfied with it as a portfolio visualization tool. It links automatically with many brokerage accounts, and has breakdowns by both portfolio and individual investment levels.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72175f90adc2e004c434fd308c1d2327",
"text": "That is a weird one. Typically one never needs to layout cash to exercise an option. One would only choose to use option 1, if one is seeking to buy the options. This would occur if an employee was leaving a company, would no longer be eligible for the ISO (and thereby forfeit any option grant), and does not want to exercise the options. However, what is not weird is the way income tax works, you are taxed on your income in the US. I assume you are talking about the US here. So if you exercise 10K shares, if under either option, you will be taxed on the profit from those share. Profit = (actual price - strike price) * shares - fees",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "362db2132f76b356240b557058c5bff7",
"text": "\"It depends on how big the dilution is. Could be a good trade. Do the math yourself, many times nobody else has as all the employees think they are going to get rich because \"\"options\"\" :)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5d1d152614dde74cea6e8431471e43b",
"text": "\"You can make a contingent offer: \"\"I will buy this house if I sell my own.\"\" In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with \"\"Please Reject Me\"\".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest. If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash). If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one. (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of \"\"R.\"\" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other. Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself. If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against. With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac82ae9bf367bc776e6cc23a6f99543a",
"text": "\"There are two reasons why most options aren't exercised. The first is obvious, and the second, less so. The obvious: An option that's practically worthless doesn't get exercised. Options that reach expiry and remain unexercised are almost always worthless bets that simply didn't pay off. This includes calls with strikes above the current underlying price, and puts with strikes below it. A heck of a lot of options. If an option with value was somehow left to expire, it was probably a mistake, or else the transaction costs outweighed the value remaining; not quite worthless, but not \"\"worth it\"\" either. The less obvious: An option with value can be cancelled any time before expiration. A trader that buys an option may at some point show a gain sooner than anticipated, or a loss in excess of his tolerance. If a gain, he may want to sell before expiry to realize the gain sooner. Similarly, if a loss, he may want to take the loss sooner. In both cases, his capital is freed up and he can take another position. And — this is the key part — the other end matched up with that option sale is often a buyer that had created (written) exactly such an option contract in the first place – the option writer – and who is looking to get out of his position. Option writers are the traders responsible, in the first place, for creating options and increasing the \"\"open interest.\"\" Anybody with the right kind and level of options trading account can do this. A trader that writes an option does so by instructing his broker to \"\"sell to open\"\" a new instance of the option. The trader then has a short position (negative quantity) in that option, and all the while may be subject to the obligations that match the option's exercise rights. The only way for the option writer to get out of that short position and its obligations are these: Not by choice: To get assigned. That is to say: a buyer exercised the option. The writer has to fulfill his obligation by delivering the underlying (if a call) to the option holder, or buying the underlying (if a put) from the option holder. Not by choice: The option expires worthless. This is the ideal scenario for a writer because 100% of the premium received (less transaction costs) is profit. By choice: The writer is free to buy back exactly the same kind of option before expiry using a \"\"buy to close\"\" order with their broker. Once the option has been purchased with a \"\"buy to close\"\", it eliminates the short position and obligation. The option is cancelled. The open interest declines. Options thus cancelled just don't live long enough to either expire or be exercised.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5af9d614536688e05b29550da45aeb55",
"text": "Yes, that's the risk. If the stock is bouncing around a lot your options could get assigned. If it heads south you now are the proud owner of more of a falling stock. It's good that you're looking to understand the risks of an investment method. That's important no matter what the method is.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "683ed52a2c1f779f32da70bf19112b14",
"text": "Yes, and there's a good reason they might. (I'm gonna use equity options for the example; FX options are my thing, but they typically trade European style). The catch is dividends. Imagine you're long a deep-ITM call on a stock that's about to pay a dividend. If that dividend is larger than the time value remaining on the option, you'd prefer to exercise early - giving you the stock and the dividend payment - rather than hanging on to the time value of the option. You can get a similar situation in FX options when you're long a deep-ITM American call on a positive-carry currency (say AUDJPY); you might find yourself so deep in the money, with so little time value left on the option, that you'd rather exercise the option and give up the remaining time value in return for the additional carry from getting the spot position early.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2591b8960a7aec0e1f980a946309cc61",
"text": "Oh it is ok. I was a little confused, because I tried to read up on future options and options as much as possible, and to still get question marks worried me. I mean to my knowledge, options can be traded as is without margin, while futures do need margin. If you are a starving artist, you can see the draw of not having to have margin to keep track of, but be able at the same time to learn about another market to trade in (commodities).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "200210b493be3700afa3184f92fdd8aa",
"text": "Agree with some of the posts above - Barchart is a good source for finding unusual options activity and also open interest -https://www.barchart.com/options/open-interest-change",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
cdae7760799435980af197817f9a92af
|
Conservative ways to save for retirement?
|
[
{
"docid": "f1a77888aa6785b6bfac3feea734ffa8",
"text": "A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b623b6274302c11d05991d92406e35c8",
"text": "\"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5833ec8d238cc8454f640e2e7dadd266",
"text": "It has been hinted at in some other answers, but I want to say it explicitly: Volatility is not risk. Volatility is how much an investment goes up and down, risk is the chance that you will lose money. For example, stocks have relatively high volatility, but the risk that you will lose money over a 40 year period is virtually zero (in particular if you invest in index funds). Bonds, on the other hand, have basically no volatility (their cash flow is totally predictable if you trust the future of your government), but there is a significant risk that they will perform worse than stocks over a longer period. So, volatility equals risk only if you are day trading. A 401(k) is literally the opposite of that. For further reading: Never confuse risk and volatility Also, investing is not gambling. Gambling is bad because the odds are stacked against you. You need more than average luck to actually win and the longer you play, the more you will lose. Investing means buying productive capital that will produce further value. The odds are in your favor. Even if you do a moderately bad job at investing, the longer you stay, the more you will win.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "340d44a9f7c323428a3fd7a583777194",
"text": "I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "afcbba3f03728adfe19c574190cb89cd",
"text": "Dividend reinvestment plans are a great option for some of your savings. By making small, regular investments, combined with reinvested dividends, you can accumulate a significant nest egg. Pick a medium to large cap company that looks to be around for the foreseeable future, such as JNJ, 3M, GE, or even Exxon. These companies typically raise their dividends every year or so, and this can be a significant portion of your long term gains. Plus, these programs are usually offered with miniscule fees. Also, have a go at the interest rate formulas contained in your favorite spreadsheet application. Calculate the FutureValue of a series of payments at various interest rates, to see what you can expect. While you cannot depend on earning a specific rate with a stock investment, a basic familiarity with the formula can help you determine a rate of return you should aim for.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "257a8f93e0de0801f8797cea3e791f6e",
"text": "Buy gold, real coins not paper. And do not keep it in a bank.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "996b732e38a70f90a62d98cbc95f0edd",
"text": "A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "551e04ec2baa8f1a64f61ef6cd41daff",
"text": "The vanilla advice is investing your age in bonds and the rest in stocks (index funds, of course). So if you're 25, have 75% in stock index fund and 25% in bond index. Of course, your 401k is tax sheltered, so you want keep bonds there, assuming you have taxable investments. When comparing specific funds, you need to pay attention to expense ratios. For example, Vanguard's SP 500 index has an expense ratio of .17%. Many mutual funds charge around 1.5%. That means every year, 1.5% of the fund total goes to the fund manager(s). And that is regardless of up or down market. Since you're young, I would start studying up on personal finance as much as possible. Everyone has their favorite books and websites. For sane, no-nonsense investment advise I would start at bogleheads.org. I also recommend two books - This is assuming you want to set up a strategy and not fuss with it daily/weekly/monthly. The problem with so many financial strategies is they 1) don't work, i.e. try to time the market or 2) are so overly complex the gains are not worth the effort. I've gotten a LOT of help at the boglehead forums in terms of asset allocation and investment strategy. Good luck!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e2f74d5da16c8fedf4baa825e11f13d7",
"text": "According to my reading, the Trinity study says you can withdraw 4% a year for 30 years without exhausting your nest egg, not necessarily that it won't shrink. In most cases, your nest egg will indeed grow. But unfortunately you can't plan to leave no estate while simultaneously preparing for worst-case scenarios in case you happen to pick a bad year to stop working. You can run simulations based on historical data on sites like cFIREsim. And once you're retired, you could potentially increase your spending if simulations show that you're likely to leave behind a large estate. You also probably want to look into things like charitable remainder trusts.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a4af3b7e4a7dc409c0d3b4efd7d64128",
"text": "\"I have an idea. Keep saving what you are and think \"\"Early Retirement\"\". Work for 20 years, then do whatever you want 40 hours a week. If your satisfied with your current lifestyle, start thinking of your bigger long term financial goals and when you want to accomplish them by. Maybe you can accomplish these sooner than you think. Saving to buy a house/property? Investment portfolio? Want to travel all over the world? Family planning/kids? I am sure you will figure out how you would want to spend it.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b57b3a32bfd52fec3ec9ac55da0dc76a",
"text": "Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college. Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts. Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income. With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal. This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement. It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need. Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere? Could a relative loan you money? Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash? Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same? Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash? Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation? Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there. Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "081215682c8e1eab69d3bbd7dddc7c1c",
"text": "\"You raise a good point about the higher marginal rates for 401K but things will be different, in retirement, than they are for you now. First off you are going to have a \"\"boat load\"\" of money. Like probably a multi-millionaire. Also your ability to invest will (probably) increase greater than the maximum allowable to invest. For this money you might choose to invest in real estate, debt payoff, or non-qualified mutual funds. So fast forward to retirement time. You have a few million in your 401K, you own your house and car(s) outright and maybe a couple of rental properties. For one your expenses are much lower. You don't have to invest, pay social security taxes, or service debt. Clothing, gas, dry cleaning are all lower as well. You will draw some income off of non-qualified plans. This might include rental real estate, business income, or equity investments. You can also draw social security income. For most of us social security will provide sustenance living. Enough for food, medical, transportation, etc. Add in some non-qualified income and the fact that you are debt free, or nearly so, and you might not need to draw on your 401K. Plus if you do need to withdraw you can cherry pick when and what amount you withdraw. Compare that to now, your employer pays you your salary. Most of us do not have the ability to defer our compensation. With a 401K you can! For example lets say you want a new car where you need to withdraw from your 401K to pay for it. In retirement you can withdraw the full amount and pay cash. Part of this money will be taxed at the lowest rate, part at higher rates. (Car price dependent.) In retirement you can take a low interest or free loan and only withdraw enough to make the payments this year. Presumably this will be at the lowest rate. Now you only have one choice: Using your top marginal rate to pay for the car. It doesn't matter if you have a loan or not.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82c7493b748407a298bceb7eb6c7650f",
"text": "\"The thing about the glide path is that the closer you're to the retirement age, the less risk you should be taking with your investments. All investments carry risk, but if you invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 20 and lose all your retirement money - it will not have the same effect on your retirement as if you'd invest in a volatile stock market at the age of 65 and then lose all your retirement money. Static allocation throughout your life without changing the risk factor, will lead you to a very conservative investment path, which would mean you're not likely to lose your investments, but you're not likely to gain much either. The point of the glide path is to allow you taking more risks early with more chances of higher gains, but to limit your risks down the road, also limiting your potential gains. That is why it is always suggested to start your retirement funds early in your life, to make sure you have enough time to invest in potentially high return stocks (with high risk), but when you get close to your retirement age, it is advised to do exactly the opposite. The date-targeted funds do that for you, but you can do it on your own as well. As to the academic research - you don't need to go that far. Just look at the graphs to see that over long period investments in stocks give much better return than \"\"conservative\"\" bonds and treasuries (especially when averaging the investments, as it usually is with the retirement funds), but over a given short period, investments in stocks are much more likely to significantly lose in value.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "66a8d2bd6df7b51a688f52da91c955b0",
"text": "\"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7a0bb7979da8c6d219194fbe361f039b",
"text": "You can't pay your bills with equity in your house. Assuming you paid off the mortgage, where would the money come from that you plan to live off of? If that is your whole retirement savings I'd say do neither. Maybe an annuity (not variable) for SOME of the money, keep the rest invested in conservative investments some of it in cash for emergencies.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bbb043138c397f744b965e44a89abb5f",
"text": "\"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3c4db89839bf06a8c684257ea8615b86",
"text": "\"Since the other answers have covered mutual funds/ETFs/stocks/combination, some other alternatives I like - though like everything else, they involve risk: Example of how these other \"\"saving methods\"\" can be quite effective: about ten years ago, I bought a 25lb bag of quinoa at $19 a bag. At the same company, quinoa is now over $132 for a 25lb bag (590%+ increase vs. the S&P 500s 73%+ increase over the same time period). Who knows what it will cost in ten years. Either way, working directly with the farmers, or planting it myself, may become even cheaper in the future, plus learning how to keep and store the seeds for the next season.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c2c923b73acb20d13c877daff38b68aa",
"text": "\"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95e90433ef39fdd56ddc0a47483bb000",
"text": "Keep in mind that chasing after tax savings tends to not be a good way of saving money. What is a good strategy? Making sure that you take all the deductions you are entitled to. What is a bad strategy: You asked for a book recommendation. The problem is that I don't know of any books that cover all these topics. Also keep in mind that all books, blogs, articles, and yes answers to questions have a bias. Sometimes the bias can be ignored, other times it can't. Just keep looking for information on this site, and ask good specific questions about these topics.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "416ef7846826a6105c8771f921f2ad33",
"text": "\"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e0181b5b73cc89e56d3146f077981403",
"text": "You need a find a financial planner that will create a plan for you for a fixed fee. They will help you determine the best course of action taking into account the pension, the 403B, and any other sources of income you have, or will have. They will know how to address the risk that you have that that particular pension. They will help you determine how to invest your money to produce the type of retirement you want, while making sure you are likely to not outlive your portfolio.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
a68f5c588848d142850fb124d45b560c
|
What taxes are assessed on distributions of an inherited IRA?
|
[
{
"docid": "e409101aacee5b31d46831cc1500c13c",
"text": "For an inherited IRA, there are a few options for taking distributions. You clearly haven't done option 1. It sounds like you haven't done option 2 because otherwise you would probably know how it is taxed. That leaves you with option 3. With option 3, you must distribute the entire amount within 5 years. For you, I'm not sure if that means you need to distribute the entire amount by the end of 2016 or 2017. If it was 2016, then you'll probably have to pay penalties. Distributions from an inherited IRA are taxed as ordinary income regardless of your age or the distribution option you select.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5980be7c0d9e69f125b921f78cbe28a5",
"text": "Distributions from an inherited IRA will be taxed as ordinary income and there are required minimum distributions for the inherited account. Assuming you were 55 at the time of your mother's death, your life expectancy according to the IRS is 29.6 years. Your required yearly distributions on $200,000 would be roughly $6800. For each year that you didn't withdraw that, you would owe a 50% penalty of the distribution amount (~$3400). That's probably better than the tax hit you would take if you pulled it all in as income in a 5 year window (ie. all right now since you're at the end of the window).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a83b5dd0290b284fe4ca0d42b88cebfd",
"text": "\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "82af646d66f85ef474e9de8b8398800f",
"text": "\"You've been taking the RMDs. Each year the RMD is calculated by taking the prior 12/31 balance and dividing by the divisor, calculated when you inherited, and dropping by 1 each year. Some great trades and your account balance goes up. That's great, but of course it sends the next RMD higher. I'd understand how marginal rates work and use the withdrawal to \"\"top off\"\" your current bracket. This will help slow the growth and runaway RMD increases.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d5d70263a9125dd0bacf63062f78f2d",
"text": "You do not have to wait 5 years from when a particular dollar was earned to withdraw it. To be a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA, A) the Roth IRA must have been opened for 5 years (which yours was), and B) you must be 59.5 years old, or meet one of the other exceptions (and $10,000 for a first-time home purchase is one of the exceptions). Since it is a qualified distribution, there is no tax or penalty.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4b673df4129fb2dab004b655c4a601aa",
"text": "No. As a rule, the dividends you see in the distribution table are what you'll receive before paying any taxes. Tax rates differ between qualified and unqualified/ordinary dividends, so the distribution can't include taxes because tax rates may differ between investors. In my case I hold it in an Israeli account but the tax treaty between our countries still specifies 25% withheld tax This is another example of why tax rates differ between investors. If I hold SPY too, my tax rate will be very different because I don't hold it in an account like yours, so the listed dividend couldn't include taxes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "11a044cfd9b549af3b3cc67a51554b0d",
"text": "A more recent article on inheritance taxes than the one cited by @JohnBensin says that Maryland does not charge inheritance tax on inheritances received from parents (and other close relatives as well). Thus, there is no inheritance tax due to Maryland on your inheritance, and of course, estate tax (both Federal and State) is imposed on the estate and payable by the estate, and thus should have been taken into account by the executor before determining the amount to be divided among the children. If the executor screwed up on this point, some of the inheritance may have to be returned to the estate so that the estate can pay the taxes due, or be paid directly to the Federal Government and/or the State of Maryland on behalf of the estate. Some part of the inheritance might be taxable income to you if it came in the form of an Inherited IRA on which Federal (and possibly State) taxes have to paid on the (taxable part of) any distribution from the IRA including the Required Minimum Distribution that must be made from the IRA each year. (There is also a 50% penalty for not taking at least the RMD each year). Note that the value of the IRA is not taxable income in the year of inheritance, just the money taken as a distribution. Some people liquidate the IRA within 5 years, as used to be required for non-spouse inheritors under earlier tax law, and thus end up paying a lot more income tax than they would have to pay if they went the RMD route. If your uncle took the help of a lawyer in winding up your father's estate, you are probably OK in that all the rules were likely followed, but if it was a do-it-yourself job (or you don't trust your uncle not to screw it up anyway!), then, as John Bensin has already told you, you should certainly consult a tax professional in Maryland to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fca04554645e605e1908186d142ee401",
"text": "\"This does not apply to Roth IRAs. It defines the difference between the two depending on what your age is when this happens. If you are 59 or younger, you have a 10% penalty in addition to taxes. If you are between 59.5 and 70, there is no penalty, but you do have to pay taxes. If you are 70.5 or older, then you MUST withdraw money, and that withdrawal is called the \"\"required minimum distribution\"\" and you pay taxes on it as if it were income. In terms of investments, the two are the same in that the earnings you make on your investments grow tax free. Here is more information between the two. *Improvements are welcome for my answer.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f5e7d884112312c7b1fc9bc6b52daec",
"text": "I think the general rule for Canada resident to receive foreign inheritance don't have tax effect and you don't have to declare it. It's a little different from US global tax regulation. ref: intuit.ca",
"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": "ce5718ede79de53a57b69ab4512e9c05",
"text": "Time to look at a tax table. 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%. This is what 2 answers here seem to miss, and the 3rd touches, but doesn't keep going. 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 Roth benefit is maximized In the end, to choose between Traditional or Roth, one would have to have far more details regarding the person's financial situation. The right choice is rarely 100% known except in hindsight.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "311624613cc87899692c9eddabdeb721",
"text": "Fast Forward 40 - 45 years, you're 70.5. You must take out ~5% from your Traditional IRA. If that was a Roth, you take out as much as you need (within reason) when you need it with zero tax consequences. I don't know (and don't care) whether they'll change the Roth tax exclusion in 40 years. It's almost guaranteed that the rate on the Roth will be less than the regular income status of a Traditional IRA. Most likely we'll have a value added tax (sales tax) then. Possibly even a Wealth Tax. The former doesn't care where the money comes from (source neutral) the latter means you loose more (probably) of that 2.2 MM than the 1.7. Finally, if you're planning on 10%/yr over 40 yrs, good luck! But that's crazy wild speculation and you're likely to be disappointed. If you're that good at picking winners, then why stop at 10%? Money makes money. Your rate of return should increase as your net worth increases. So, you should be able to pick better opportunities with 2.2 million than with a paltry 1.65 MM.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f55e8b5dd4f124ff76f3380c6fd54f32",
"text": "In a (not Roth) IRA, withdrawals are generally already taxed as regular income. So there should be no tax disadvantage to earning payment in lieu of dividends. It's possible that there is an exception for IRAs but I was unable to find one and I cannot see the reason for one since the dividend tax rate is usually lower than the income tax rate (which is why some company owners elect to receive part of the company profits via dividend rather than all through their salary).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a09cd21f070cc0902cff893c3827266a",
"text": "\"Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a \"\"stepped-up basis\"\" when valuing for estate tax purpose. From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues \"\"the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?\"\" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "47447e31ee0e6167f34a876a0ca7c73d",
"text": "Both of the other answers are correct and good answers, but I think neither directly answers your question. No, you do not need to pay additional taxes on the wedding gifts simply because of the fact that they are going into a Roth IRA. Similarly, if you put them into a traditional IRA, that amount would be deductible (assuming you met the other criteria, including minimums and maximums of earned income, in both cases). The act of putting money into a Roth IRA is not what makes it taxable; its original source is. Roth simply does not reduce your current taxes any, whereas a traditional IRA would. The seeming exception to this is when rolling money from a tax-deductible source to a non-tax-deductible destination, such as transferring money from a Traditional IRA or 401(k) to a Roth IRA or 401(k). Then, the taxable event is really the distribution from the Traditional IRA or 401(k), not the deposit into a Roth IRA or 401(k), though of course if you rolled a 401(k) over to a traditional IRA it would not be taxable.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7393ce2893e7aafc863b32950e7bcc64",
"text": "My question is... how is this new value determined? Does it go off of the tax appraised value? The tax assessors values are based on broad averages and are not very useful in determining actual home value. The most defensible valuation outside of a sale is a professional appraisal, real-estate agents may or may not give you reasonable estimates, but their opinions are less valuable than that of a professional appraiser. Additionally, agents hoping to land you as a client (even if you tell them you're not trying to sell) could be motivated to over-estimate. In many instances a few opinions from agents will be good enough, but if there is any contention a professional appraisal will be better. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the properties value with the will or something? The real-estate market fluctuates too much to make having an appraisal done prior to your death a practical approach in most circumstances. You could make arrangements so that an appraisal would be scheduled after your death. Here's a good resource on the topic: Estimating the Value of Inherited Real Estate",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "67d3d320d296b4bb3441273718e949a6",
"text": "From the IRS: You do not include in your gross income qualified distributions or distributions that are a return of your regular contributions from your Roth IRA(s). It's not just that the particular money you take from the IRA isn't taxable. It's not counted as part of your income at all, so it won't have any effect on the taxation of other income.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "04a95e7b3aadedaa7b4dbab8390f2224",
"text": "It goes to the beneficiaries, not necessarily the heirs. Taxation is a bit complicated and depends also on the plan requirements, the new owners' decisions, and the last status of the deceased owner. You should really talk to a tax adviser with the specific details to get a reliable answer that would address your situation. You should also ask about State inheritance taxes for the deceased and the beneficiaries' states. Here's the NOLO article on the issue.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "2f6e2d2808ff5c87c89a04e3b65cc2aa",
"text": "\"The major bureaus use the Fair Isaac scoring model, for the most part. Here's an excerpt from a web site (Versions of the FICO scoring model) to explain: One of the first things a newcomer to this board learns is the difference between FICO and FAKO scores. FAKO refers to the non-FICO scores offered by various companies. FAKO scores have little value since few of them are used by lenders and they do not match closely to FICO scores. But even when you stick with FICO scores, confusion can ensue because FICO scores have many different editions, versions, and variations. On a single day, a consumer could theoretically have dozens of different FICO scores, depending on which version and credit agency is used to produce the score. This post provides a summary of the various FICO versions. Please offer any corrections or updates, and they will be edited in. The FICO scoring model with its familiar range of 300 to 850 was first introduced in 1989. Since then, FICO has released five major revisions: 1995, 1998, 2004, 2008, and 2014. Each \"\"edition\"\" uses a different formula and produces a different score. When a new FICO edition is released, many lenders continue using an older version for years before \"\"upgrading.\"\" The 1995 revision is no longer in common use, but later editions are still used by lenders. Most FICO editions are commonly known by the year of introduction: FICO 98, FICO 04, and FICO 08 (although FICO now calls it FICO Score 8, without the zero). The most recent edition is FICO Score 9 introduced in 2014. As of 2014, FICO Score 8 is the most commonly used. However, most mortgage lenders use FICO 04 for Equifax and Transunion, and FICO 98 for Experian. In addition to the \"\"classic\"\" version, FICO offers \"\"Industry Option\"\" versions customized for auto loans, credit cards, installment loans, personal finance loans, and insurance. These have a score range of 250 to 900, so the scores are not fully comparable with \"\"classic\"\" versions. As of 2015, Auto and Bankcard scores are available from myFICO as described here. Citibank provides the Equifax FICO 8 Bankcard score free each month to credit cards holders. Each credit agency (Transunion, Equifax, and Experian) uses a customized version of each FICO edition. As a result, a consumer's FICO scores from each agency may differ even when all credit information is identical among the agencies. Because there are many FICO versions, when a score is received, it's helpful to know which version it is. If a lender provides a credit score, ask for details such as which credit agency was used, which FICO edition was used, and whether the score is an Industry Option version. The lender may not always be willing or able to provide the answers, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Transunion Official name: FICO Risk Score Classic 98 Common name: TU-98 Available directly to consumers: No Real-world score range: 336 to 843 (as shown on page 16 of this Transunion document) Equifax Official name: Equifax FICO Score 4 (also known as Equifax Beacon 96) Common name: EQ-98 This version appears to be seldom used, but a poster reported it used on a mortgage application in 2014. Available directly to consumers: No Experian Official name: Experian FICO Score 2 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v2) Common name: EX-98 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO when buying a product that includes all 19 available scores (as described here). Some credit unions such as PSECU provide it free each month to members. Real-world score range: 320 to 844 (as shown on this Experian document) Most mortgage lenders use FICO 04 for Equifax and Transunion, and FICO 98 for Experian. All three scores will normally be pulled and the middle score (not the average) will be used by the lender. Transunion Official name: Transunion FICO Score 4 (also known as Transunion FICO Risk Score Classic 04) Common name: TU-04 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Real-world score range: 309 to 839 (as shown on page 16 of this Transunion document) Equifax Official name: Equifax FICO Score 5 (also known as Equifax Beacon 5.0) Common name: EQ-04 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Also available from Equifax when buying FICO score (as a one-time purchase with the \"\"Score Power\"\" product available here, or as part of credit monitoring available here). Some credit unions such as DCU provide it free each month to members. Real-world score range: 334 to 818 Experian Official name: Experian FICO Score 3 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v3) Common name: EX-04 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO when buying a product that includes all 19 available scores (as described here). Real-world score range: 325 to 850 (as shown on this Experian document) Transunion Official name: Transunion FICO Score 8 (also known as Transunion FICO 8 Risk Score or FICO Risk Score Classic 08) Common name: TU-08 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Some credit card issuers such as Discover, Barclays, and Walmart provides it free each month. Real-world score range: 341 to 850 (as shown on page 15 of this Transunion document) Equifax Official name: Equifax FICO Score 8 (also known as Equifax Beacon 09) Common name: EQ-08 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Real-world score range: 300 to 850 Experian Official name: Experian FICO Score 8 (also known as Experian FICO Risk Model v8) Common name: EX-08 Available directly to consumers: from myFICO as described here. Real-world score range: 316 to 850 (as shown on this Experian document) How FICO Score 8 differs from previous versions is explained here. In May 2014, a poster named android01 received 850 scores from all three credit agencies, as described in this post. In June 2014, a poster named fused received 850 scores from all three credit agencies, as described in this post. This 2011 press release describes a study of FICO Score 8 scores. From a sample of 250,000 credit reports, it found 0.02% had a score of 850, or about 1 out of every 5000 persons. In 2014, FICO announced a new version called FICO Score 9. More info here. As of February 2016, the score is now available directly to consumers, as described here. This New York Times article says FICO 9 includes two important changes: unpaid debts that result in collection actions will no longer have a negative effect on a score if the debt has been paid. unpaid medical debts will have less negative effect on scores. In 2001, FICO released a new scoring model called NextGen. It is claimed to be an improvement over \"\"classic\"\" FICO models because it tracks more factors. But it has failed to catch on with lenders because its score range of 150 to 950 is incompatible with the familiar 300 to 850 range, requiring lenders to recalculate cutoff scores and revise many rules and policies. Only a small percentage of lenders reportedly use NextGen. Transunion Official name: Precision Available directly to consumers: No Equifax Official name: Pinnacle Available directly to consumers: In 2014, Pentagon Federal Credit Union (PenFed) began to provide this score free to its credit card holders, as discussed in this post. Experian Official name: FICO Advanced Risk Score Available directly to consumers: No I included all of this to make the point that there are many variations of the scoring models, and all of them are customized to one degree or another by each of the major bureaus as a means of giving their models more credibility, as far as they're concerned. To your question about coming up with a \"\"fair\"\" scoring model, can you propose what makes current scoring models unfair? I think it's a safe assumption to make that the financial community has already had a substantial amount of input into how the current scoring models work. To think otherwise implies that the credit bureaus are just kinda \"\"winging it\"\" with whatever they think is best. Their models are designed to give their client creditors the best scoring model possible based on what those creditors have stated is important to them. There isn't a unified single scoring model out there, and the bureaus definitely won't share the details of their modifications. You can always come up with your own custom model, but how it compares to what's widely used, that's anyone's guess. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
e08df33197ca1fa5e358e81fe8993e6a
|
eurodollar future
|
[
{
"docid": "557a6cad91cdbb47585518cd2448d807",
"text": "If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c70a614589354717b2fe6d2c6f2c6b2f",
"text": "^This. As we can see with the pending $125b bail-out that Europe will provide. Imagine, if India was in the place of the Spanish? Who would conjure up such a bail-out for them? As said by 23_47 earlier, the credit rating is a measure of risk. A country backed by a 17-country alliance (Eurozone) is less risky to invest in than a country without such support.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "868f3ce3c945c36bb0a4722495e848c9",
"text": "The Euro will collapse because Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece will have to default on their debt. In order to keep up with current payments they have to take emergency loans at the same time that their economies are in recession and demands on social programs are increasing. There is simply no way that they can cut enough spending and raise enough revenue to balance their budgets. That is not opinion, it is arithmetic. If they cannot pay their loans they will either voluntarily leave the Euro, or they will be forced out. Next comes France who also has a large and growing budget deficit and a large public debt. It is unsustainable. That which is unsustainable will end. The last reason that the Euro will fail and that it will be soon is Germany. Up to now, all the bailouts of Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain have come predominantly from Germany. In order to float the Eurobonds that some idiots think might save Europe, the German people have to authorize their government to participate and thereby take on another mountain of debt. The German people will not vote for that authorization. Is that enough reasons? Because there are more. Lots more. Read [Mike Shedlock](http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1aa8e87a1881bf344bdfee7c4c4e4eb5",
"text": "For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0a493da20b1cbd404298095c658da479",
"text": "My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d94ad5be7d204f89427965766afdaa0d",
"text": "Its highly unlikely to 'collapse', perhaps there will be managed defaults, yes, but there is no way they will let it collapse as a global depression would follow. If the euro collapses it will also bring down most of the global economy including the likes of China and the US (not to mention the Germans) and they are not going to let that happen. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6cf8ce18-2042-11e1-9878-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1y0lc0hy1 P.s. I am surprised we have not seen more suggestions of buying guns, land and building a commune.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fa6070b128d30dc1befad2f10a9c1934",
"text": "theoretically this concept makes sense. However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits. so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof). Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe. Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dcde7237c2f07188a3d6d58976f32e7",
"text": "Crypto will make us all rich when it becomes the new standard highly volatile currency. As we all know how attractive a highly volatile currency is. Who doesn't want to save on 1% banking fees for cross border transactions when you could use crypto and potentially make or lose 20%. /s",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b346ac30ad1dc6e6710e573670fca002",
"text": "Gundlach shared a chart that showed how investors in European “junk” bonds are willing to accept the same no-default return as they are for U.S. Treasury bonds. In other words, the yield on European “junk” bonds is about the same—between 2 percent and 3 percent—as the yield on U.S. Treasuries, even though the risk profile of the two could not be more different. Sounds like a strong indicator to me. How might this play out in the US?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6133f6d083b06457fb1454a44b740a51",
"text": "These scenarios discuss the period to 2025. They assess the deep uncertainty that is paralysing decision-taking. They identify the roots of this as the failure of the social model on which the West has operated since the 1920s. Related and pending problems imply that this situation is not recoverable without major change: for example, pensions shortfalls are greater in real terms that entire expenditure on World War II, and health care and age support will treble that. Due to the prolonged recession, competition will impact complex industries earlier than expected. Social responses which seek job protection, the maintenance of welfare and also support in old age will tear at the social fabric of the industrial world. There are ways to meet this, implying a major change in approach, and a characteristic way in which to fail to respond to it in time, creating a dangerous and unstable world. The need for such change will alter the social and commercial environment very considerably. The absence of such change will alter it even more. The summary is available [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-6.shtml) or at the foot of the link given in the header. The much richer paper is [here](http://www.chforum.org/scenario2012/paper-4-1.shtml). These scenarios are the latest in a series in a project that dates back to 1995. Over a hundred people participated from every continent, over a six month period. The working documents are available on the web.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3a6335622f8a3acaa31061005b25dd52",
"text": "Cyprus could be *forced* into such a position because the deposits are euro-denominated and the issuing central bank sits outside the sovereign authority of Cyprus. So they could go, hat in hand, to the ECB asking them to backstop deposits. A lender of last resort function that is more or less a given in countries with their own sovereign currencies. In a country like the US, where deposits are denominated in US dollars and the US is the issuer of the dollar, there would always be a option. Bail-ins are certainly possible as a political choice but they'd never be the only option. Which is why you didn't see them or depositor losses of any kind in spite of hundreds of bank failures in the wake of the 2008 crisis.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6cf9b2ccd17a3a3b93f98c2723349375",
"text": "I don't intend to live in the UK again If you don't intend to live in the UK again, my advise would be to move this back to Germany in EUR in the near future. Generally taking Fx [Currency] risk is not advisable unless the portfolio is large. I don't need the money in the short term As you don't need the money immediately, you can afford to wait and watch a bit. Whether the rate will be more favourable or worse can't be predicated with certainty. So you can wait for few weeks / months and pick up a week when it is slightly favourable and convert them into EUR.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8ff08107bbfa13cbfeed8f5187580bce",
"text": "\"The result would be catastrophic. The almost-reserve currency would collapse which would produce a medium sized depression, perhaps same with with 2008-now, or even larger, since don't forget, that one was produced from a housing bubble existing in only a part of the american economy; imagine what would happen if almost the full size of the economy (Europe) would collapse, even if Europe isn't as much \"\"connected\"\". But reality here is, there's no chance to that. The real reason you hear those rumors is that America (along with minor partners like the British Sterling) want to bring down the Euro for medium-term benefit. e.g. Several economists get on Bloomberg announcing they are short selling the Euro. Irony is, all this is helping the Euro since selling and short-selling and selling and short-selling helps massively its liquidity. It's like several nay sayers actually making a politician famous with their spite.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ac121912dc1c747d695b32eb58af4f23",
"text": "\"The way I am trading this is: I am long the USD / EUR in cash. I also hold USD / EUR futures, which are traded on the Globex exchange. I am long US equities which have a low exposure to Europe and China (as I expect China to growth significantly slower if the European weakens). I would not short US equities because Europe-based investors (like me) are buying comparatively \"\"safe\"\" US equities to reduce their EUR exposure.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21053ffb4e4417f8b9aa2e3a8d20fed8",
"text": "\"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0d97f0121812448b1da034da9f68ef43",
"text": "While it's possible that the dollar could lose its grip as the global currency, it's unlikely that it will be quickly supplanted by another. The world might simply see a a paradigm shift towards the use of whatever currency suits whichever counterparty at any given moment.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1b10c208e6a10472043ca10fee09750f
|
How should I value personal use television for donation?
|
[
{
"docid": "b9e300e15d7fc0259b17bb812af02b9a",
"text": "IRS Pub 561 says you have to use fair market value. You cannot simply use a depreciated value. You should attempt to determine what people normally pay for comparable items, and be prepared to defend your determination with evidence in the event of an audit.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c18cae75fef4be13785d41f25b2afd15",
"text": "The usual lazy recommendation: See what similar objects, in similar condition, of similar age, have sold for recently on eBay. That establishes a fair market value by directly polling the market.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5acb6556d05ac1c627a66d37616051f8",
"text": "Is it a tube television, digital, analog, what? Tube televisions are no longer made in (or imported to) the U.S., and if it's an analog set then it would require a digital converter just for anyone to use it for watching broadcast signals, since analog television signals are gone and have been replaced by DTV. That makes all the difference in the world as far as valuation. If it doesn't have resale value to begin with then I doubt you can put a real value on it for donation purposes.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "525e392a0ac6242236018d295cf5f8fc",
"text": "I used TurboTax last year. It had a section for donations where it figured out the amounts of the IRS approved values for a donation. You would need to know the size of the television and the current condition it is in. He's a screenshot - though it's not from the TV section. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Taxes-101/Video--How-to-Estimate-the-Value-of-Clothing-for-IRS-Deductions/INF13870.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us TurboTax offers a free online tool called ItsDeductible that does the same thing (though I haven't tried it). Unfortunately, I don't have the current one with TV's to give you the range of amounts that apply to yours. --I am not affiliated with TurboTax and did not receive it for free for a review.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c6d279fcc0efcb58c986d4ec89ff6752",
"text": "Donations need to be with no strings attached. In this case, you make the cash donation, a deduction, and then they pay you, in taxable income. It's a wash. Why not just give them the service for free? Otherwise this is just money going back and forth.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "95fb081008312c2dfafa836812aa2973",
"text": "I stopped paying that $1000/year charge for cable seven years ago. Today I watch about an hour of television a week. Some weeks I will watch one sports game. Meanwhile I've been able to spend on the order of $10,000 for healthier, more productive activities. I've noticed that people don't talk about what they watched on television much anymore, so I'm not missing out on social interactions.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c9742fdc9f1838021e9391b7022be4c",
"text": "My first question to you is if you itemize? If not the charitable contributions will not do any good. Along these lines, donating unused items to Goodwill or similar can help boost your charitable giving. The bottom line is that the 401K is one of the few real deductions high earners have. If you anticipate earning similarly next year, you could both contribute the max. You still have some time before the end of the year, can you get more in your wife's account? Does your state have income tax? You might be able to deduct sales tax for larger purchases if you made any. However, I would not justify a large purchase just to write off the sales tax. Conventional wisdom will tell you that you should have a large mortgage in order to deduct the interests. However, it does not make sense to pay the bank 10K so you can get 3K back from the government. That seems pretty dumb. If you did not do additional withholding, you probably will have to pay a significant amount plus penalty if you owe more than $1000. You still have time to make one more quarterly payment, so you may want to do so by January 15th. For next year I would recommend the following: The funny thing about giving is that it rarely helps the recipient, it does so much more for the giver. It helps you build wealth. For myself I like to give to charities that have a bent to helping people out of poverty or homelessness. We have two excellent ones here in Orlando, FL: Orlando Rescue Mission and Christian Help. Both have significant job training and budgeting programs.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c192d27c9016708470d14d6d7cf7fe62",
"text": "It's a good question. We can't know for sure, but here are some things to think about. Paypal advertises a discounted transaction rate for non-profit organizations. In the U.S. at least, the rate they advertise is 2.2% + 0.30 USD. There are lots of things that can come into play here, such as international rates or any special deal that Wikimedia has struck with Paypal, but it seems reasonable to guess that of your 2€ donation, Wikipedia sees perhaps 1.65€. Note that most of the fee is a flat rate; of the next 2€ in your donation, Wikipedia gets 1.96€. Direct debit probably has lower fees. Paypal has to account for some credit card transaction fees in their fee structure, and direct debit does not. Therefore, I would guess that to maximize your gift, direct debit might result a little better than Paypal. Charities, in general, don't want to tell you the best way to donate, because they want it to be as easy for you as possible, and don't want to discourage any type of donation at all. They are very happy to get any donation, even if one method over another results in slightly higher fees. Wikimedia, in particular, offers many different options for donating.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4cae8238f6e26c4d379e57e9b1da0a6c",
"text": "How much is your time worth This has been useful for me, judging things based on how much their time value is worth to me, weighted more heavily than their actual worth. For instance, there was a time when I used to work on the weekends and pay to have my laundry done. Doing the laundry myself would have cost 25 cents, but taken two hours at least. Since I was making $45 an hour, I would have lost $90 dollars by doing my laundry, instead of paying specialists $28 to do it for me, much better than I would. Your own capital should begin growing at a rate that makes many MANY things worth less than the time it takes for you to entertain it. So in your cable bill example, you shouldn't have argued for a $5 credit for two hours, unless you make $2.25 an hour, after tax. This is simplistic, as you would extrapolate how much this would cost you over a year or two, but such cost benefit analysis' become easy with this simple concept. This can also be used to rationalize your lavish expenditures. Such as not really comparing the costs for a flight, because its a 2 hour flight for $400 and you've found yourself making at least $200 an hour with your $416,000 annual earnings and capital gains. This will cure your frugality while retaining safe guards on your spending.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "849a6a57fd61f68f164e32543f5b3641",
"text": "To be safe you should donate the printer to the charity. Or even better, have the charity purchase it and you donate a equivalent number of dollars directed towards purchasing the equipment. Once your wife no longer volunteers with the charity it should be returned to the charity because they own it.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dc4a7bc4d9f5710563a2dd7ce1ce7c0",
"text": "I stopped paying for television from my cable company a few years ago. I have Netflix, Hulu Plus, Roku, DVDs, Bluray, ect. The only thing I wish I had that I don't is HBOgo. I'm in the same boat about commercials as the author. When I'm at someone else's house and a commercial comes on, it is a novel thing.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c7f98dd7ed1bf4829b4c4624c3f71b51",
"text": "\"You should probably have a tax professional help you with that (generally advisable when doing corporation returns, even if its a small S corp with a single shareholder). Some of it may be deductible, depending on the tax-exemption status of the recipients. Some may be deductible as business expenses. To address Chris's comment: Generally you can deduct as a business on your 1120S anything that is necessary and ordinary for your business. Charitable deductions flow through to your personal 1040, so Colin's reference to pub 526 is the right place to look at (if it was a C-corp, it might be different). Advertisement costs is a necessary and ordinary expense for any business, but you need to look at the essence of the transaction. Did you expect the sponsorship to provide you any new clients? Did you anticipate additional exposure to the potential customers? Was the investment (80 hours of your work) similar to the costs of paid advertisement for the same audience? If so - it is probably a business expense. While you can't deduct the time on its own, you can deduct the salary you paid yourself for working on this, materials, attributed depreciation, etc. If you can't justify it as advertisement, then its a donation, and then you cannot deduct it (because you did receive something in return). It might not be allowed as a business expense, and you might be required to consider it as \"\"personal use\"\", i.e.: salary.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a334c4c2ac21564debbc5a94d2f563f7",
"text": "If you plan on trading it, it's a social construct. If you plan on keeping it for yourself, then the value is personal. Not always easy to disentangle the two. Sometimes people are more willing to risk personal safety to rescue items of sentimental value...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "21db1c5902c3904dcba5e7cddfd17f69",
"text": "You are thinking of something similar to [Patreon](www.patreon.com) then but more automated? I don't quite think automation works for this because you might not want to give every site you visit money, even if you visit it often in a short period of time (e.g. while doing research into cults you might not want to give the WBC money).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "98a515cbd0567da8e4039af7b5522f27",
"text": "That's tricky, actually. First, as the section 1015 that you've referred to in your other question says - you take the lowest of the fair market value or the actual donor basis. Why is it important? Consider these examples: So, if the relative bought you a brand new car and you're the first title holder (i.e.: the relative paid, but the car was registered directly to you) - you can argue that the basis is the actual money paid. In essence you got a money gift that you used to purchase the car. If however the relative bought the car, took the title, and then drove it 5 miles to your house and signed the title over to you - the IRS can argue that the car basis is the FMV, which is lower because it is now a used car that you got. You're the second owner. That may be a significant difference, just by driving off the lot, the car can lose 10-15% of its value. If you got a car that's used, and the donor gives it to you - your basis is the fair market value (unless its higher than the donor's basis - in which case you get the donor's basis). You always get the lowest basis for losses (and depreciation is akin to a loss). Now consider the situation when your relative is a business owner and used the car for business. He didn't take the depreciation, but he was entitled to. IRS can argue that the fact that he didn't take is irrelevant and reduce the donor's basis by the allowable depreciation. That may bring your loss basis to below the FMV. I suggest you take it to a tax professional licensed in your state who will check all the facts and circumstances of your situation. Your relative might be slapped with a gift tax as well, if the car FMV is above certain amount (currently the exemption is $14000).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a10cea3aa1bde01025755e8453bcdc66",
"text": "\"First to clear a few things up. It is definitely not a gift. The people are sending you money only because you are providing them with a service. And for tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\". It has nothing to do with the fact that you are soliciting the donation, as charitable organizations solicit donations all the time. For tax purposes, it is not a \"\"Donation\"\" because you do not have 501(c)(3) non profit status. It is income. The question is then, is it \"\"Business\"\" income, or \"\"Hobby\"\" related income? Firstly, you haven't mentioned, but it's important to consider, how much money are you receiving from this monthly, or how much money do you expect to receive from this annually? If it's a minimal amount, say $50 a month or less, then you probably just want to treat it as a hobby. Mostly because with this level of income, it's not likely to be profitable. In that case, report the income and pay the tax. The tax you will owe will be minimal and will probably be less than the costs involved with setting up and running it as a business anyway. As a Hobby, you won't be able to deduct your expenses (server costs, etc...) unless you itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On the other hand if your income from this will be significantly more than $600/yr, now or in the near future, then you should consider running it as a business. Get it clear in your mind that it's a business, and that you intend it to be profitable. Perhaps it won't be profitable now, or even for a while. What's important at this point is that you intend it to be profitable. The IRS will consider, if it looks like a business, and it acts like a business, then it's probably a business... so make it so. Come up with a name for your business. Register the business with your state and/or county as necessary in your location. Get a bank account for your business. Get a separate Business PayPal account. Keep personal and business expenses (and income) separate. As a business, when you file your taxes, you will be able to file a Schedule C form even if you do not itemize your taxes on Schedule A. On Schedule C, you list and total your (business) income, and your (business) expenses, then you subtract the expenses from the income to calculate your profit (or loss). If your business income is more than your business expenses, you pay tax on the difference (the profit). If your business expenses are more than your business income, then you have a business loss. You would not have to pay any income tax on the business income, and you may be able to be carry the loss over to the next and following years. You may want to have a service do your taxes for you, but at this level, it is certainly something you could do yourself with some minimal consultations with an accountant.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f0322d184b8afaede4eb61aef8169642",
"text": "\"in the U.S. (for @Software Monkey) books are treated just like any other donation, you look at comparable sales: IRS Link. Sounds like a pain to do each book manually. TurbtoTax has \"\"ItsDeductable\"\" product that suppose to help you calculate the value of donated items.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fb34f2e5de976f061f43e82136d3aead",
"text": "\"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "70d0915408fb98db5d2f5e7cb0c31731",
"text": "Assuming cell A1 contains the number of trades: will price up to A1=100 at 17 each, and the rest at 14 each. The key is the MAX and MIN. They keep an item from being counted twice. If X would end up negative, MAX(0,x) clamps it to 0. By extension, if X-100 would be negative, MAX(0, X-100) would be 0 -- ie: that number doesn't increase til X>100. When A1=99, MIN(a1,100) == 99, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=100, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 0. When A1=101, MIN(a1,100) == 100, and MAX(0,a1-100) == 1. Of course, if the 100th item should be $14, then change the 100s to 99s.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
b12c73ce781071bf177c7ec37fc3499c
|
Converting bank statements to another currency?
|
[
{
"docid": "b0faa9b09d609afbd8ea2deaf040ae91",
"text": "If the account is not dollar-denominated, I would say it does not make sense at all to have dollar-denominated statements. Such a statement would not even be accurate for any reasonable amount of time (since FX rates constantly fluctuate). This would be a nightmare for accounting purposes. If you really need to know the statements in USD, I think the best practice would be to perform the conversion yourself using Excel or some similar software.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "c673ccd11ad9d1f7ff188d2f48f926e3",
"text": "How can I correctly account for having money in different currencies, without currency transfers or currency fluctuations ending up as gains or losses? In my view, your spreadsheet should be in multiple currencies. i.e. if you have gained some in specific currency, make a note of it in that specific currency. If you have spent something in a specific currency, then make a note accordingly. You can use an additional column for reporting this in a neutral currency say GBP. If you are transferring the money from account of one currency to account of another; change the balances as appropriate with the actual conversion rate. If you need this record keeping for tax purposes, then get a proper advise from accountant.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0917358d7171dfb49f861e4ea004f0e4",
"text": "GBP is widely traded currency and it is definitely possible to send GBP internationally with out any conversion. Of late banks are trying to maximize the FX and if they see a Euro country the sending bank assumes the beneficiary account is in Euro and converts to get FX spread than letting the beneficiary bank decide. Keep complaining to your bank and then the sending bank will put your account in exception and not convert next payments",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bd10a69b01f073d534e36116efede61d",
"text": "\"I haven't used transfer wise, so can't speak to their price. Regardless of what service you use, what you should look for is whether the conversion price is greater than how much you think the currency's price will move. Example: if your bank charges ~8% on any currency exchange, you should ask yourself whether you think the pound (or whatever currency) will drop by >8% within whatever time frame you've set for yourself. If not, you're better off keeping your money in that currency. I checked out their site and it does look like transferwise is pretty inexpensive, around .9% in transaction costs. So again, ask yourself whether you think the pound will drop by 1% in your time frame. Doesn't seem like a lot, but also consider that currencies typically fluctuate by just a few tenths of a percentage per day. I know you're probably looking for an answer like \"\"pound will drop, sell it all,\"\" but I don't know enough about currencies to be giving advice there. I would definitely pay attention to Brexit negotiations though, as that will be one of the biggest influences on both currencies for quite some time.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "28a0e1b5359a14a50a5383e06c2e5531",
"text": "The big risk for a bank in country X is that they would be unfamiliar with all the lending rules and regulations in country Y. What forms and disclosures are required, and all the national and local steps that would be required. A mistake could leave them exposed, or in violation of some obscure law. Plus they wouldn't have the resources in country Y to verify the existence and the actual ownership of the property. The fear would be that it was a scam. This would likely cause them to have to charge a higher interest rate and higher fees. Not to mention that the currency ratio will change over the decades. The risks would be large.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3da6581a70d5dbae8ecdb677ea0df69d",
"text": "\"The Option 2 in your answer is how most of the money is moved cross border. It is called International Transfer, most of it carried out using the SWIFT network. This is expensive, at a minimum it costs in the range of USD 30 to USD 50. This becomes a expensive mechanism to transfer small sums of money that individuals are typically looking at. Over a period of years, the low value payments by individuals between certain pair of countries is quite high, example US-India, US-China, Middle-East-India, US-Mexico etc ... With the intention to reduce cost, Banks have built a different work-flow, this is the Option 1. This essentially works on getting money from multiple individuals in EUR. The aggregated sum is converted into INR, then transferred to partner Bank in India via Single SWIFT. Alongside the partner bank is also sent a file of instructions having the credit account. The Partner Bank in India will use the local clearing network [these days NEFT] to credit the funds to the Indian account. Option 3: Other methods include you writing a check in EUR and sending it over to a friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically very nominal costs. Typically one month of timelines. Option 4: Another method would be to visit an Indian Bank and ask them to issue a \"\"Rupee Draft/Bankers Check\"\" payable in India. The charges for this would be higher than Option 3, less than Option 1. Mail this to friend/relative in India to deposit this into Indian Account. Typically couple of days timelines for transfer to happen.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8568a818f3a0c4a7473017be99a53d48",
"text": "\"I found an answer by Peter Selinger, in two articles, Tutorial on multiple currency accounting (June 2005, Jan 2011) and the accompanying Multiple currency accounting in GnuCash (June 2005, Feb 2007). Selinger embraces the currency neutrality I'm after. His method uses \"\"[a]n account that is denominated as a difference of multiple currencies... known as a currency trading account.\"\" Currency trading accounts show the gain or loss based on exchange rates at any moment. Apparently GnuCash 2.3.9 added support for multi-currency accounting. I haven't tried this myself. This feature is not enabled by default, and must be turned on explicity. To do so, check \"\"Use Trading Accounts\"\" under File -> Properties -> Accounts. This must be done on a per-file basis. Thanks to Mike Alexander, who implemented this feature in 2007, and worked for over 3 years to convince the GnuCash developers to include it. Older versions of GnuCash, such as 1.8.11, apparently had a feature called \"\"Currency Trading Accounts\"\", but they behaved differently than Selinger's method.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f04505861658ff9ebfb9874a0c99f59c",
"text": "\"Your bank Lloyds sent the Australian bank $500 AUD, having converted $317.90 GBP at a rate of 1.5728 AUD per GBP which was slightly less than the published rate which normally applies to transfers measured in hundred thousands if not millions of pounds. Using the published rate amounts to an unstated fee of 11 AUD which you are not complaining about. You also paid a fee to Lloyds of 20 GBP which you disclosed after I had posted this answer. The Australian bank refused to accept the payment because the account to which the money had to be deposited was closed. Perhaps, instead of just sending back $500 AUD, it converted the amount to GBP (less its fee of what I suspect is $60 AUD) and sent it back. Notice that the bank rate of 1.592 AUD per GBP says that 276.58 GBP is what you get from a tad over $440 AUD, and so perhaps St George's charged you a $60 AUD fee for the conversion while converting the rest ($440 AUD) to GBP. Or maybe Lloyds got $500 AUD from St Georges and charged you a $60 AUD fee for converting it to GBP. Regardless of who did the conversion, it is also possible that the rate you got (not quite as good as the published rate) corresponds to $450 AUD converting to 276.58 GBP and a $50 AUD fee for the conversion. You said I was told by Lloyds TSB that St. Georges wouldn't levy any charges, as they would be paid a separate \"\"agent's fee\"\". This might have been told to you as \"\"St. Georges will not be levying any charges if you send $500 AUD for deposit to the account in Australia and your payee will get exactly $500 AUD if you pay us 317.90 GBP plus 20 GBP as our conversion fee today. If you want to send GBP instead, we cannot tell you how much to send because St. George's will levy a charge for conversion to AUD, and the conversion will be at the rate then prevailing. So your payee may receive more or less than $500 AUD.\"\" Perhaps, wanting to send exactly $500 AUD, you chose to pay Lloyds TSB and send AUD. But, since the account was closed, the money came back, and so you ended up paying yet another conversion fee. The questions are, who charged the second fee? As Muro said in a comment, it should be listed somewhere on the itemized statement. and is it a reasonable charge? I think $50 or $60 AUD is excessive but, then, I am not a bank, and maybe that is what their standard (minimum) charge is. As I said in my comment, the charge is usually a percentage of the amount transferred subject to a minimum levy that the bank sets.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b36c234151124c34fb9189a4356e13d3",
"text": "Either way you'll be converting to US Dollars somewhere along the line. You are seeking something that is very redundant",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ef4596cc691792cd683cf0bc01b94162",
"text": "If I understand your question, you're misunderstanding the buy/sell spread, and at least in this instance seem to be in an unfortunate situation where the spread is quite large. The Polish Zloty - GBP ideal exchange rate is around 5.612:1. Thus, when actually exchanging currency, you should expect to pay a bit more than 5.612 Zloty (Zloties?) to get one Pound sterling, and you should expect to get a bit less than 5.612 Zloty in exchange for one Pound sterling. That's because you're giving the bank its cut, both for operations and so that it has a reason to hold onto some Zloty (that it can't lend out). It sounds like Barclay's has a large spread - 5.211 Buy, 5.867 Sell. I would guess British banks don't need all that many Zloty, so you have a higher spread than you would for USD or EUR. Other currency exchange companies or banks, particularly those who are in the primary business of converting money, may have a smaller spread and be more willing to do it inexpensively for you. Also, it looks like the Polish banks are willing to do it at a better rate (certainly they're giving you more Zloty for one Pound sterling, so it seems likely the other way would be better as well, though since they're a Polish bank it's certainly easier for them to give you Zloty, so this may be less true). Barclay's is certainly giving you a better deal on Pounds for a Zloty than they are Zloty for a Pound (in terms of how far off their spread is from the ideal).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d14c708264ea9f9d8eb46a76dd39c6e1",
"text": "It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4f83fd4e12068a3dd80172e8afb3afef",
"text": "In addition to TransferWise that @miernik answered with and that I successfully used, I found CurrencyFair which looks to be along similar lines and also supports US$.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4e6aa2924261e912bdbcdaa2d5fed67f",
"text": "\"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7e6ce529c96e20905f0789621c8fcfea",
"text": "The easiest options appear to be to open an account with one of the large multinational banks like Citi. They have options such as opening two separate checking accounts, one in each currency, and Citi in particular has an international account that appears to make mutli-currency personal banking easier. All of the options have minimum balance requirements or fees for conversion, but if you need quick access this seems to be the best bet. Even if this is a one-time event and you don't need the account, a bank like Citi may be able to help you cash the check and get access to the funds quicker than a national or local bank. http://www.citibank.com/ipb-global/homepage/newsite/content/english/multi_cap_bank_depo.htm Alternatively if you know anyone with a US bank account you can deposit it with them and take the cash withdrawal from their account, assuming they agree, the check isn't too large, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9e72fadc852581a598e99e7afbbebe1b",
"text": "There's no need to move it to a different currency, but if your bank is in Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain or Greece, you might consider moving it to a different Eurozone country. Finland, Austria, Germany or the Netherlands seem safest at present. There's a small risk of a forcible Eurozone exit followed by redenomination of bank deposits into a new currency that will immediately collapse.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "bf9423b9d4b925b1d38d1d09b0f2d4a8",
"text": "\"My solution when I lived in Singapore was to open an account with HSBC, who at the time also had branches in the US. When I was home, I used the same debit card, and the bank only charged a nominal currency exchange fee (since it never had to leave their system, it was lower than had it left their system). Another option, though slightly more costly, is to use Paypal. A third option is to cash-out in CAD and convert to USD at a \"\"large\"\" institution - the larger your deposit/conversion balance, the better the rate you can get. To the best of my knowledge, this shouldn't be taxable - presuming you've paid the taxes on it to start with, and you've been filing your IRS returns every year you've been in Canada.\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
f613f5577cb249eb9e8cd39ec3520410
|
What are some good software packages for Technical Analysis?
|
[
{
"docid": "8be84e4133969ba6462f5fa6309b578b",
"text": "About 10 years ago, I used to use MetaStock Trader which was a very sound tool, with a large number of indicators, but it has been a number of years since I have used it, so my comments on it will be out of date. At the time it relied upon me purchasing trading data myself, which is why I switched to Incredible Charts. I currently use Incredible Charts which I have done for a number of years, initially on the free adware service, now on the $10/year for EOD data access. There are quicker levels of data access, which might suit you, but I can't comment on these. It is web-based which is key for me. The data quality is very good and the number of inbuilt indicators is excellent. You can build search routines on the basis of specific indicators which is very effective. I'm looking at VectorVest, as a replacement for (or in addition to) Incredible Charts, as it has very powerful backtesting routines and the ability to run test portfolios with specific buy/sell criteria that can simulate and backtest a number of trading scenarios at the same time. The advantage of all of these is they are not tied to a particular broker.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "1d82d63b3d880c95aec153bdfbca001c",
"text": "There are several paths of study you could undertake. If you want to learn the fundamentals of the stock market and become a financial analyst, then finance, economics, and accounting (yes, accounting) are all good to study either on your own or in an institution. Furthermore, if you want to study a specific industry, it can't hurt to know a fair amount of the science behind that particular industry. For example, if you want to understand the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries, knowledge of clinical trials, the FDA's approval process (in the US, at least), off-label uses for drugs, genetic engineering, etc. are all good to know. You don't have to become an expert, but having a firm grasp on the science is extremely useful when evaluating a company's prospects. If you're interested in becoming an algorithmic trader or a quant, then physics, certain fields of engineering, signals processing, applied math, computer science, or econometrics will get you much farther than a standard finance or accounting degree. Most people can learn the basics of finance; not everyone can learn advanced mathematics. A lot of the above applies to learning about the forex market as well. Economics is certainly helpful, especially central bank policy, but since the forex market is so massive and liquid, many mathematical tools are necessary because algorithms play a key role as well. Per littleadv's suggestion, an MBA with a concentration in finance may be an option for someone who already has a degree. Also, an MSF (Master of Science in Finance) or a degree in financial engineering (called an MFE, or ORFE, for Operations Research and Financial Engineering) are other, potentially better options for someone pursuing a more technical career. A high-octane trading firm may not care that you've taken marketing and management classes; they want to hire someone who can understand complex algorithms and design and implement new ones quickly. Some MSF programs are pre-experience programs, which means that in exchange for taking more time to complete, they don't expect you to have significant work experience in the financial industry. An MBA might require such experience, however.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "419ccafaa188ccb2a84201f32683508e",
"text": "Algo traders/quants/market backtesters/coders/et al. I am looking to backtest basic things like the correlation of P/E, EV/EBITDA, etc. to market performance. I know a little R and Python. What is the easiest way to learn to backtest this sort of stuff? I want to eventually get into algo trading sort of stuff. I'd **greatly** appreciate it!",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7686f9cc57517b629e5b205415287262",
"text": "Depends on what you are doing, in energy trading it is all about R and SQL, I still use Python for scraping and as a general scripting language though. In my opinion if you know how to program in one language you can likely pick up a different language without too much trouble, at least that has been my experience. So for entry level just showing that you can program in anything might be enough.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8e54f391924671d1e00e469749b7206a",
"text": "Most businesses have some sort of software to manage their client data. Most of these various software and/or services are industry specific. Black Diamond seems to be a client management tool targeting investment advisers. From the black diamond site Reach an unparalleled level of productivity and transform your client conversations. You don't need one of these unless you're a professional investment adviser with so many clients you can't track them yourself or need more robust reporting or statement generation tools. For your purposes most regular brokers, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, TD, etc, have more than enough tools for the retail level investor. They have news feeds, security analysis papers, historical data, stock screeners, etc. You, a regular retail investor doesn't need to buy special software, your broker will generally provide these things as part of the service.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7ad7c351cacf62d86d12f2a96d703e40",
"text": "Just got back from the office, so I can better answer it now. The trader uses the Metatrader platform, which is programmed with a language based off C++. I'm working with him to update some algos now. His strategies running on ToS are more or less proof-of-concept that he streams right now as he sources investors.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "35ecc70f06b1d857067088599dea1266",
"text": "\"Your questions In the world of technical analysis, is candlestick charting an effective trading tool in timing the markets? It depends on how you define effective. But as a standalone and systematic strategy, it tends not to be profitable. See for example Market Timing with Candlestick Technical Analysis: Using robust statistical techniques, we find that candlestick trading rules are not profitable when applied to DJIA component stocks over 1/1/1992 – 31/12/2002 period. Neither bullish or bearish candlestick single lines or patterns provide market timing signals that are any better than what would be expected by chance. Basing ones trading decisions solely on these techniques does not seem sensible but we cannot rule out the possibility that they compliment some other market timing techniques. There are many other papers that come to the same conclusion. If used correctly, how accurate can they be in picking turning points in the market? Technical analysts generally fall into two camps: (i) those that argue that TA can't be fully automated and that interpretation is part of the game; (ii) those that use TA as part of a systematic investment model (automatically executed by a machine) but generally use a combination of indicators to build a working model. Both groups would argue (for different reasons) that the conclusions of the paper I quoted above should be disregarded and that TA can be applied profitably with the proper framework. Psychological biases It is very easy to get impressed by technical analysis because we all suffer from \"\"confirmation bias\"\" whereby we tend to acknowledge things that confirm our beliefs more than those that contradict them. When looking at a chart, it is very easy to see all the occurences when a certain pattern worked and \"\"miss\"\" the occurences when it did not work (and not missing those is much harder than it sounds). Conclusions\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0790763ce1214e0a9fa81798f3e2e128",
"text": "I've used BigCharts (now owned by MarketWatch.com) for a while and really like them. Their tools to annotate charts are great.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9764ba3afd9210806de741e49eaf845a",
"text": "\"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "4a69f6feef70bb807a609ce01b474c06",
"text": "\"As a former computer engineer turned Finance guy, I'll attest that Matlab (or even R) are immensely better analytic tools than Excel/VBA. Excel and VBA are \"\"good enough\"\" if all you're going to do is cookie-cutter DCF analysis (...lame), but if you want to do any advanced monte carlo simulations or something that requires more than a few dozen iterations, you're going to need a sturdy mathematical programming language. Excel is nothing but a kiddie toy compared to those. Additionally, everyone and their dog knows Excel and VBA, adding Matlab or R to your resume definitely boosts your appeal to employers. I prefer Matlab, but R is free and open-source so it's much more widely available. They both have similar syntax.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0ecb2a725e650028ba832f98801a01b8",
"text": "I'd recommend looking at fundamental analysis as well -- technical analysis seems to be good for buy and sell points, but not for picking what to buy. You can get better outperformance by buying the right stuff, and it can be surprisingly easy to create a formula that works. I'd check out Morningstar, AAII, or Equities Lab (fairly complicated but it lets you do technical and fundamental analysis together). Also read Benjamin Graham, and/or Ken Fisher (they are wildly different, which is why I recommend them both).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "50532dba417e7878dd4042a85918e8ac",
"text": "Look into commodities futures & options. Unfortunately, they are not trivial instruments.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fc8484f24d0c259e02cb1c1a590e2d52",
"text": "\"A lot of investors prefer to start jumping into tools and figuring out from there, but I've always said that you should learn the theory before you go around applying it, so you can understand its shortcomings. A great starting point is Investopedia's Introduction to Technical Analysis. There you can read about the \"\"idea\"\" of technical analysis, how it compares to other strategies, what some of the big ideas are, and quite a bit about various chart patterns (cup and handle, flags, pennants, triangles, head & shoulders, etc). You'll also cover ideas like moving averages and trendlines. After that, Charting and Technical Analysis by Fred McAllen should be your next stop. The material in the book overlaps with what you've read on Investopedia, but McAllen's book is great for learning from examples and seeing the concepts applied in action. The book is for new comers and does a good job explaining how to utilize all these charts and patterns, and after finishing it, you should be ready to invest on your own. If you make it this far, feel free to jump into Fidelity's tools now and start applying what you've learned. You always want to make the connection between theory and practice, so start figuring out how you can use your new knowledge to generate good returns. Eventually, you should read the excellent reference text Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets by John Murphy. This book is like a toolbox - Murphy covers almost all the major techniques of technical analysts and helps you intuitively understand the reasoning behind them. I'd like to quote a part of a review here to show my point: What I like about Mr. Murphy is his way of showing and proving a point. Let me digress here to show you what I mean: Say you had a daughter and wanted to show her how to figure out the area of an Isosceles triangle. Well, you could tell her to memorize that it is base*height/2. Or if you really wanted her to learn it thoroughly you can show her how to draw a parallel line to the height, then join the ends to make a nice rectangle. Then to compute the area of a rectangle just multiply the two sides, one being the height, the other being half the base. She will then \"\"derive\"\" this and \"\"understand\"\" how they got the formula. You see, then she can compute the area under a hexagon or a tetrahedron or any complex object. Well, Mr. Murphy will show us the same way and \"\"derive\"\" for us concepts such as how a resistance line later becomes a support line! The reson for this is so amusing that after one reads about it we just go \"\"wow...\"\"\"\" Now I understand why this occurs\"\". Murphy's book is not about strategy or which tools to use. He takes an objective approach to describing the basics about various tools and techniques, and leaves it up to the reader to decide which tools to apply and when. That's why it's 576 pages and a great reference whenever you're working. If you make it through and understand Murphy, then you'll be golden. Again, understand the theory first, but make sure to see how it's applied as well - otherwise you're just reading without any practical knowledge. To quote Richard Feynman: It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Personally, I think technical analysis is all BS and a waste of time, and most of the top investors would agree, but at the end of the day, ignore everyone and stick to what works for you. Best of luck!\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8aa23b21543de181fdf441fec5422437",
"text": "Nah most of what the quants do is v. mathematics / theory heavy and not prog / cs heavy. It really depends whether you want a markets / stats focus or a programming focus. Programming focus = CS style, development, implementing algo.s Markets focus (where the $ is) = refining algos and working with devs, stats/research, more physics/maths-style work with a lot more scripting and empirical approaches to problem solving Take it from someone in industry... you'll be fine just go out and get a job, they'll train you, start reading the FT for some background on markets and read up on basic financials e.g. what stock actually is, how it's prices, how markets actually function (structurally), how people price swaps and bonds, etc.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "94876d4c3ead19f5407541421c9d4e19",
"text": "That will depend on what area of finance you're interested in. For some sectors you shouldn't focus on programming as a skill to learn outside the classroom (for example CRE, iBanking). Personally I think VBA, Python and R would be great places to start (and useful in sectors such as risk management, trading and possibly even the insurance industry). Just pick one, the first one you learn will take the longest after that you'll realize learning more isn't that hard.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7df875fca034439703105832281a3772",
"text": "Is this legal? If the purpose of the sale at that price is to defraud somebody else, you could have a legal issue. For example if the purpose was to make yourself appear poorer to make you eligible for government aid; Or to increase your chances of getting a college grant; or to not have to pay money to your spouse as part of a divorce settlement; or if there is an unwritten part of the transaction for the sibling to sell the house back to in a few years when you no longer need to appear poor. The answer by @littleadv covers the tax complications. I do have one additional point. The sale can't be a short sale. The bank will never approve. The short sale can only be approved when the bank is convinced that there are no viable purchasers at a level to get all their money back. Your sibling is not an arms length transaction.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
1af0fa5418b9ade6cbd27cb5f57a3393
|
Can a stock exchange company actually go bust?
|
[
{
"docid": "87620c0886760b6e8eb40fe5c0e8d742",
"text": "A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a7d9132f205e3cc966b4f2f0534c76c4",
"text": "Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "4ee6ab7ae416d23d3589af9ad5f809e7",
"text": "Typically if the company is so out of whack that it's liquidating, it won't have assets to even cover all its debts never mind enough to return anything back to owners. If there was any shot of the company continuing as an ongoing concern it would file an 11 and reorganize.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5612dcb81d25c948a71027db30822c3b",
"text": "\"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5b58d203013c024c3657a62f4153e2b6",
"text": "In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9ada05587e681b61fb3df92c0c01a033",
"text": "If you've got shares in a company that's filed for U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that sucks, it really does. I've been there before and you may lose your entire investment. If there's still a market for your shares and you can sell them, you may want to just accept the loss and get out with what you can. However, shares of bankrupt companies are often delisted once bankrupt, since the company no longer meets minimum exchange listing requirements. If you're stuck holding shares with no market, you could lose everything – but that's not always the case: Chapter 11 isn't total and final bankruptcy where the company ceases to exist after liquidation of its assets to pay off its debts. Rather, Chapter 11 is a section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permits a company to attempt to reorganize (or renegotiate) its debt obligations. During Chapter 11 reorganization, a company can negotiate with its creditors for a better arrangement. They typically need to demonstrate to creditors that without the burden of the heavy debt, they could achieve profitability. Such reorganization often involves creditors taking complete or majority ownership of the company when it emerges from Chapter 11 through a debt-for-equity swap. That's why you, as an investor before the bankruptcy, are very likely to get nothing or just pennies on the dollar. Any equity you may be left holding will be considerably diluted in value. It's rare that shareholders before a Chapter 11 bankruptcy still retain any equity after the company emerges from Chapter 11, but it is possible. But it varies from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and it can be complex as montyloree pointed out. Investopedia has a great article: An Overview of Corporate Bankruptcy. Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last. In this article, we'll explain what happens when a public company files for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws and how it affects investors. [...] How It Affects Investors [...] When your company goes bankrupt, there is a very good chance you will not get back the full value of your investment. In fact, there is a chance you won't get anything back. [...] Wikipedia has a good article on Chapter 11 bankruptcy at Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a56976424c16c7b52f1a6b079e405eac",
"text": "Randomly selected stocks would probably become worthless at a similar rate of all businesses going out of business do. I'm not sure why you'd randomly select a stock though. Stocks in the S&P500 (or other similar index), or large-cap stocks probably become worthless at a much lower rate.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "72531ea689a54ad31fcdca474bd1289f",
"text": "Different stakeholders have different views of 'failure'. Maybe from Air Berlin's point of view it was a failure, but technically speaking it is not really possible to 'fail'. As long as all shares were purchased, which is a virtual guarantee since the investment banks who underwrite the IPO by and large must do to some extent, it will always be 'successful'. A decrease in value of shares immediately after IPO means that the investment bank who did the IPO for Air Berlin didn't match its IPO price with market expectations, causing shorts on the stock, and thus a decline. No failure per se.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "067c2877b26bf466143a7b71d7303236",
"text": "Yes, but the fact is they probably don't have the cash to pay them right now. I know they just did a cash raise by offering existing shareholders rights to purchase more shares and then additionally issuing new shares. this is always a sign of a weak cash positions, although I'm not quite sure where their cash position is post-rights offering. One of the other issues was the US DOJ fined DB wayyyy more than they should have relative to what they fined US banks for the MBS crisis. Basically US Banks were fined fairly, but DB wasn't because they are foreign and the DOJ likes using foreign companies as piggy-banks...obviously this comes back to hurt the US as now Europeans are more than happy to fine US tech companies up the yin-yang. An eye for an eye...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7f4ba7667d4bfca0520dcba717ee5f09",
"text": "The stock exchange here serves as a meeting place for current shareholders who want to sell their shares to someone else. This has nothing to do with liquidation, which is a transaction between the company and its shareholders. A company does not have to be listed on an exchange to make distributions to shareholders.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e5e3dade8a05f62c1c0225500bd5eb9b",
"text": "This would be governed by bankruptcy law... there is no reason a healthy company would take such action. This would be a long drawn process generally amongst debtor the taxes have higher claim, then Sunday debtors (payable), then bank loans... This is followed by loan raised by company deposits then debentures... even among share holders there can be special shares... More often most shares are equal and the balance is distributed to all.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "cf82fdf941800ef384dc15c5f5ba0df1",
"text": "I'm surprised that [Theranos](https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/05/theranos-board-response-deposition-court-documents) isn't at or near the top. It went from $9 billion valuation to more or less worthless, all based on technological claims that never lived up to their claims, and with an all-star Board of Advisors. It's pretty much the definition of a hype bubble with an epic collapse. I suppose it's not as immediate a catastrophic failure as some of the ones on the list, but the size of the failure and collapse dwarfs most of them.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7da0708a8b135ad64f3f50ce0300ce98",
"text": "When you buy shares, you are literally buying a share of the company. You become a part-owner of it. Companies are not required to pay dividends in any given year. It's up to them to decide each year how much to pay out. The value of the shares goes up and down depending on how much the markets consider the company is worth. If the company is successful, the price of the shares goes up. If it's unsuccessful, the price goes down. You have no control over that. If the company fails completely and goes bankrupt, then the shares are worthless. Dilution is where the company decides to sell more shares. If they are being sold at market value, then you haven't really lost anything. But if they are sold below cost (perhaps as an incentive to certain staff), then the value of the company per share is now less. So your shares may be worth a bit less than they were. You would get to vote at the AGM on such schemes. But unless you own a significant proportion of the shares in the company, your vote will probably make no difference. In practice, you can't protect yourself. Buying shares is a gamble. All you can do is decide what to gamble on.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "abe4a232f283d9d04afaebe8eee9c613",
"text": "\"No one is quite sure what happened (yet). Speculation includes: The interesting thing is that Procter & Gamble stock got hammered, as did Accenture. Both of which are fairly stable companies, that didn't make any major announcements, and aren't really connected to the current financial instability in Greece. So, there is no reason for there stock prices to have gone crazy like that. This points to some kind of screw up, and not a regular market force. Apparently, the trades involved in this event are going to be canceled. Edit #1: One thing that can contribute to an event like this is automatic selling triggered by stop loss orders. Say someone at Citi makes a mistake and sells too much of a stock. That drives the stock price below a certain threshold. Computers that were pre-programmed to sell at that point start doing their job. Now the price goes even lower. More stop-loss orders get triggered. Things start to snowball. Since it's all done by computer these days something like this can happen in seconds. All the humans are left scratching their heads. (No idea if that's what actually happened.) Edit #2: IEEE Spectrum has a pretty concise article on the topic. It also includes some links to follow. Edit #3 (05/14/2010): Reuters is now reporting that a trader at Waddell & Reed triggered all of this, but not through any wrongdoing. Edit #4 (05/18/2010): Waddell & Reed claims they didn't do it. The House Financial Services Subcommittee investigated, but they couldn't find a \"\"smoking gun\"\". I think at this point, people have pretty much given up trying to figure out what happened. Edit #5 (07/14/2010): The SEC still has no idea. I'm giving up. :-)\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c03fd2a93ac59c369f93c5f51ae09587",
"text": "\"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? I imagine supply would outweigh demand and the stock would fall. Yes this is the case. Every large \"\"Sell\"\" order results in price going down and every large \"\"Buy\"\" order results in price going up. Hence typically when large orders are being executed, they are first negotiated outside for a price and then sold at the exchange. I am not talking about Ownership change event. If a company wants a change in ownership, the buyer would be ready to pay a premium over the market price to get controlling stake.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7c47d7a2b0d4192aa850717952892a9a",
"text": "I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a087862ebd93bef3b6d75993e9ced7e4",
"text": "As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
5a26d354eb2c2ccb5caa6c2d6a56862e
|
Digital envelope system: a modern take
|
[
{
"docid": "43c9c4cda34b5d159e31c8cd2a15b93b",
"text": "My wife and I use a digital form of the envelope system. We call it a budget; we record how much we want to allocate each month to spend--for each category of expense--in a spread sheet. Why use prepaid cards? Why not open a bunch of bank accounts and use debit cards from each if you want to separate the money? You could also keep a ledger for each account that you spend from on a smart phone or even in a physical ledger. The reason for the envelope method is that it psychologically hurts some people to physically part with cash. Once you digitize it in some factor, you lose what is the primary touted benefit, and it's no longer the envelope system. The secondary benefit that--once the budget for one category is gone, it's gone--is only as good as the discipline you have to not rob cash from another envelope; why is this any easier than the discipline of not debiting beyond the bottom of the ledger? So a budget IS a digital version of the envelope system; once the physical cash is removed from the equation, it's definitely not the envelope system. Sorry for the contrarian take on this question, but I've never been a fan of the envelope system for many of the reasons you have described. I guess I'm too young for the cash psychology to work for me.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3b2b808ca2935370e8bc330da96ea4ef",
"text": "\"I definitely get where you're coming from. The envelope system sounds good, but doesn't appeal to most people under 50 for many of these reasons (physical cash in my hand is just a hassle - it has no appeal or reduced spending affect on me). There are various options for prepaid debit cards such as https://www.netspend.com/ or you could use gift cards for things like gas and groceries (though that likely won't get you duplicate cards or automatic payments). As far as automatic payments, just set that up through your bank. So it's still not a perfect solution. I wish there was a better, more straightforward way, but this is the best as far as I know. Update: Ramsey solutions has since launched EveryDollar. This is Dave's preferred solution for an online \"\"digital envelope system\"\".\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "810435c5809639511389c5fc99eb133e",
"text": "\"While Googling answers for a similar personal dilemma I found Mvelopes. I already have a budget but was looking for a digital way for my husband and I to track our purchases so we know when we've \"\"used the envelope\"\". It's a free app.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ab1c07bc400ed26ad2297bc01d8e097d",
"text": "\"The whole point of the \"\"envelope system\"\" as I understand it is that it makes it easy to see that you are staying within your budget: If the envelope still has cash in it, then you still have money to spend on that budget category. If you did this with a bunch of debit cards, you would have to have a way to quickly and easily see the balance on that card for it to work. There is no physical envelope to look in. If your bank lets you check your balance with a cell-phone app I guess that would work. But at that point, why do you need separate debit cards? Just create a spreadsheet and update the numbers as you spend. The balance the bank shows is always going to be a little bit behind, because it takes time for transactions to make it through the system. I've seen on my credit cards that sometimes transactions show up the same day, but other times they can take several days or even a week or more. So keeping a spreadsheet would be more accurate, or at least, more timely. But all that said, I can check my bank balance and my credit card balances on web sites. I've never had a desire to check from a cell phone but at least some banks have such apps -- my daughter tells me she regularly checks her credit card balance from her cell phone. So I don't see why you couldn't do it with off-the-shelf technology. Side not, not really related to your question: I don't really see the point of the envelope system. Personally, I keep my checkbook electronically, using a little accounting app that I wrote myself so it's customized to my needs. I enter fixed bills, like insurance premiums and the mortgage payment, about a month in advance, so I can see that that money is already spoken for and just when it is going out. Besides that, what's the advantage of saying that you allot, say, $50 per month for clothes and $100 for gas for the car and $60 for snacks, and if you use up all your gas money this month than you can't drive anywhere even though you have money left in the clothes and snack envelopes? I mean, it makes good sense to say, \"\"The mortgage payment is due next week so I can't spend that money on entertainment, I have to keep it to pay the mortgage.\"\" But I don't see the point in saying, \"\"I can't buy new shoes because the shoe envelope is empty. I've accumulated $5000 in the shampoo account since I went bald and don't use shampoo any more, but that money is off limits for shoes because it's allocated to shampoo.\"\"\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8c64396bb5c2c08864a7a9b1276fab0b",
"text": "\"If psychologically there is no difference to you between cash and debit (you should test this over a couple of months on yourself and spouse to make sure), then I suggest two debit cards (one for you and spouse) on your main or separate checking account. If you use Mint you can set budgets for each category (envelope) and when a purchase is made Mint will automatically categorize that transaction and deduct that amount from the correct budget. For example: If you have a \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget set at $100 per month and you use the debit at McDonalds, Mint should automatically categorize it as \"\"Fast Food\"\" and deduct the amount from the \"\"Fast Food\"\" budget that you set. If it can't determine a category or gets it wrong, you can just select the proper category. Mint has an iPhone (also Android and Windows phone) app that I find very easy to use. Many people state that they don't have this psychologically difference between spending cash and debit/credit, but I would say that most actually do, especially with small purchases. It doesn't have anything to do with intellect or knowing that you are actually spending money. It has more to do with tangibility, and the physical act of handing over cash. You may not add that soda and candy bar to your purchase if you have visible cash in your wallet that will disappear more quickly. I lived in Germany for 2 years before debit cards were around or common. I'm a sharp guy and even though I knew that I paid $100 for the 152 DM, it still kind of felt like spending Monopoly money, especially considering that in the US we are used to coins normally being 25 cents or less and in Germany coins are up to 10 DM (almost $10) and are used more frequently than paper.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dd33cf6470421860ee098c213b08e658",
"text": "\"I opened several free checking accounts at a local credit union. One is a \"\"Deposit\"\" account where all of my new money goes. I get paid every two weeks. Every other Sunday we have our \"\"Money Day\"\" where we allocate the money from our Deposit account into our other checking accounts. I have one designated as a Bills account where all of my bills get paid automatically via bill pay or auto-pay. I created a spreadsheet that calculates how much to save each Money Day for all of my upcoming bills. This makes it so the amount I save for my bills is essentially equal. Then I allocate the rest of my deposit money into my other checking accounts. I have a Grocery, Household, and Main checking accounts but you could use any combination that you want. When we're at the store we check our balances (how much we have left to spend) on our mobile app. We can't overspend this way. The key is to make sure you're using your PIN when you use your debit card. This way it shows up in real-time with your credit union and you've got an accurate balance. This has worked really well to coordinate spending between me and my wife. It sounds like it's a lot of work but it's actually really automated. The best part is that I don't have to do any accounting which means my budget doesn't fail if I'm not entering my transactions or categorizing them. I'm happy to share my spreadsheet if you'd like.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f8bac368ca853f6b6e11ffa469ed47e9",
"text": "Envudu (envudu.com) looks very promising, and I think what they are planning to put out will do essentially everything you want. It's a single prepaid card, but with a connected app. On the app you choose which budget category you're going to spend on next, and then swipe your card. Your purchase gets deducted from that category. There aren't a ton of details yet on their website (e.g., what happens if you try to swipe on a category that doesn't have the funds available?) and there is going to be a $20/year fee, but I think it meets all of your criteria, even though it's a single card--you'll just need to use a smartphone with it.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "ba48743ac51c9ed30e26179b6bd711f7",
"text": "\"At times the issue seems to be one of reading comprehension and general information processing. Regardless of length or depth, an email allows for both clarity of message and a persistent record to refresh from. Yet people default to these hugely inefficient meetings. Modern meetings also seem to suffer from an issue with mob rule. Very rarely do meeting \"\"coordinators\"\" do anything but kick off meetings, instead of acting as a whip/coordinator. Everyone puts more value on a faux-friendly workplace than an efficient one, so no one is willing to be the heavy that keeps the meeting focused and on schedule.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "31048bb1b2a03ac9ca64d3e9576afa17",
"text": "Not that easy!. There’s millions of lines of code and so much logic added over the years. Programmers would add a comment line and insert the code. No one had time to cleanup or rewrite of remodularize functionality. They just piled on it !. Y2K happened and it corrected and renamed whole bunch of date fields and code to work for rollover year.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e9f2251b7f7046f30b2f76d04bf341a5",
"text": "this is absolutely correct.Take the very simplest of fast food - Subway - and try to automate it. You will get some sort of 3D printer type device. It makes no sense.. there is no way it can work. There is no way you can deliver made-to-order food with a computer right now, not even close. Also, ask yourself, do you want a robot-made pizza in an era of farm-to-table organic free-range etc?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "259214949481607d982ee738ff17c7a3",
"text": "Yes, those numbers are all that is needed to withdraw funds, or at least set online payment of bills which you don't owe. Donald Knuth also faced this problem, leading him to cease sending checks as payment for finding errors in his writings.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f535c8018919d789c01d6893d1d7c134",
"text": "Yes, indeed. For example, Ford Motor Company's website has a bit about them. Is there any advantage to having an actual physical note instead of a website? You can safeguard them yourself. Which may or may not be a good thing. It certainly brings up a bit of hassle and extra costs if you want to sell them. Though you can have lost certificates replaced, so there is more to it than just having physical possession of the certificates.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "806551235283f9d9a95065c5b04a2cbc",
"text": "neobudget.com is a website that does exactly what you are describing. It is set up for electronically using the envelope system of budgeting. Disclosure: neobudget was founded by a former coworker of mine.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b976a4e8ad6d19afe38dbcd68dd0e15d",
"text": "Some Canadian banks (RBC for instance), will accept the format No spaces, no slashes. Transit number must be five digits, if it's not add a 0 to the front. Just had a situation where the European-based system would not accept anything but an IBAN, so I called my bank and that's what they confirmed. I know this is super late, but thought I would leave it here for future generations to discover. Edit: See comments for an example.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "628c3067ea375916b6858a5828d2d35e",
"text": "Most of them have what is known as an Admin. They are basically a modern secretary. They pre-read all emails, setup all meetings, basically run the day in/day out of the person. Then the person will sit down and answer the curated inbox or forwarded messages.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "ba4ad30339ad50ab0a1c9dce238994a8",
"text": "None-fanboy source [here](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/12/05/top-android-phone-maker-faces-u-s-import-ban-tuesday/). Links to the two patents here: ['647 - System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,946,647.PN.&OS=PN/5,946,647&RS=PN/5,946,647) ['263 - Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data ](http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,343,263.PN.&OS=PN/6,343,263&RS=PN/6,343,263) I don't believe '647 will be a real threat because the language it uses means the patent is extremely broad and describes something that is fundamental to the operation of practically every web browser, indexing software and electronic guide on the planet. Like Samsung's (I think) attempt to injunct the iPhone using its 3G patents, the ITC will likely rule that the technology/system is too critical to modern function and hence cannot be a valid reason for injunction. '263, however, is a real problem for Android. My interpretation of the patent is that it's claiming a system where the OS parses data from a wirelessly transmitted stream based on type and offers it to other apps instead of having apps actively request data from the OS. As I understand it, this is exactly how Android's intent-activity model works. Because this model of data sharing is at the core of Android and fundamental to its design, it's practically impossible to circumvent without completely rewriting Android, which would break everything. Furthermore, because there is a clear alternative on how to share data (ie. apps request from OS, OS gives data parsed from stream), the protection used against the 3G injunction attempt against Apple cannot be used here. Simply put, the ITC can easily put an injunction on HTC on the basis of '263, and if it does, then *all* Android phones can expect to receive similar injunctions very very quickly after that. It would be nice to see what /r/business thinks any possible injunction may have not only on the stocks of the smartphone companies but also on the entire smartphone market as a whole. Personally, I think any injunction based on either patent will make the stocks of any Android makers and Google plummet. It would probably chill the mobile market for a while as investors try to guess just what other patents Apple might be able to use against the remaining platforms of Blackberry and Windows Phone 7. And then things will probably return to normal, sans Android and the companies that strongly supported it like Samsung, HTC and Motorola. Samsung and Moto will probably the worst hit, while HTC will end up focusing on WinPhone 7. Thoughts?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b77273be7b1b9dee9ec4e8ed82d16307",
"text": "this sounds like a course question lol. There are plenty of ways, don't think too deep into it as a question. e-mail, bulletin boards, physical mail, cloud computing/storage and the internet in general has changed the way documents are distributed and obtained.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b02daafca29b7bbe93f39f915a49050f",
"text": "meh,, regardless, it's obvious that the revenue of the USPS will continue to fall with online everything happening. I would suggest we should start winding it down with full dismantle in 25 years. There is no need. Private companies can service our postal needs now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6f1198a7edd481bd8811ecf23bee391f",
"text": "If I designed a system that handled multimillion dollar orders, I'd have the foresight to include a timestamp / order #, so resubmissions didn't generate duplicate charges. But that's probably just me and my small town ways.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "509d3284262f1f1301edb5bdf841ae46",
"text": "If you really care about security you need to use the minimum amount of technology required to accomplish your task. Systems can be mathematically proven correct but it requires exponential cost as complexity increases. This is why NASA pays about $1,000 per line of code whereas the industry average is $18. You could certainly build a system out of off the shelf parts, and it would probably work. But there is no way to prove that a backdoor wasn't inserted at the factory in China or by a malicious developer paid off by some foreign government. That $4 USB key you have was not designed with nuclear security in mind. Even if you got the source code proven correctness would cost more than developing it yourself from scratch. Yet you claim that somehow this unproven system is superior to a proven system in place for decades. Why because it is flashy? What extra functionality could it possibly offer?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a81d6496e47f01fe0a67defed241c115",
"text": "I'd argue that society would likely moved to 100% online delivered to your doorstep before this actually happened, thus removing the need for physical locations, but as someone who actually works at Amazon, yes 100% automation is their long term goal.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "daeffb1714d8e8a6204b007f0b5e978a",
"text": "Fellow Torontonian here - I'm seeing the same things you're seeing, but what worries me the most is the sheer number of people I know in my professional circles who can't so much as use a wrench, and have no clue what extra surprises you might run into when owning, but are attracted by the low mortgage rates into buying 2-3 properties and using them as rental properties purely as an investment. It's not so bad for the detached homes (which tend to be bought up by developers/contractors), but the semidetached and condos are rife with this type of owner. They don't realize that being a landlord is _a job_: things break, you're responsible, and you definitely can't rely on your tenants always acting as reasonable, promptly-paying people. I move to somewhere else in Toronto about once every 1.5 years, each time researching many units online, and seeing ~20 in person, and while there may be an increase in quality for the detached homes, every other type of rental property's quality is in steep decline as the market fills with all these non-expert, get-rich-quick types of owners.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
fd0711e16e15327568ab329c33f1c1f1
|
What happens when they run out of letters?
|
[
{
"docid": "3a08bb56370e585519e8d9129bd431e3",
"text": "\"The 3-letter tickers are from a different era.... Nowadays the usage of tickers is more of a \"\"legacy\"\" tradition rather than a current necessity. As such they're no longer limited to 3 characters. And the characters don't have to be related to the actual name. For example a company named Alphabet is trading on NASDAQ under the ticker \"\"GOOGL\"\". It has 5 characters, not 3, and (almost) none of them appear in the name of the company (used to, but not anymore).\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56d51d676394b5851cf6c07b46b19b7d",
"text": "NYSE started allowing four letter tickers around 2009. NASDAQ allows 4-5 letter tickers. I guess they'll keep increasing when / if needed. Companies are allowed to change tickers, although there are costs. Tickers in the US are assigned through a single entity. Companies that are new need to take something that's open. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124296050986346159 I see that you're in Australia, but, since there aren't really that many options to deal with the problem that you mentioned, I'd guess that you'll ultimately do the same. Not sure about how tickers are assigned there though.",
"title": ""
}
] |
[
{
"docid": "b41262077d84080b28713d8b81e5b114",
"text": "Banks cannot survive without the government. Once people lose faith in the governement, the banking system will fail. The banking system failing is a symptom of the issue, not a cause. Backstopping the banks protects the general populace, and prevents runs which will actually destroy the banking system. The burden shifts from the banks to the government. But a gaurantee is not an actual payment. The banks still operate as normal without any cash from the government, but with the knowledge that, if they ARE over extended, the government will take on their debt. the government gaurantee lowers the rates that the banks pay to raise debt to continue to operate. So let's say PIIGS fully bail out their banking system, paying off all debt, that's worse case. Where does the money come from? Revenues, aka taxes. If the gov't takes on the bank debt and has positve revenue, no problem, a little less hand outs, but the country as a whole benefits from having a functioning banking system. If revenues are poor or negative, however, it's just adding to the deficit. Gov't can print money, don't forget. But if revenues are poor and there's no hope to see them improve...Boom, all hell breaks loose, and you get Europe.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c9dfa3d401ac5c8d14a017ccdf697c3a",
"text": "\"So what is the implication of \"\"creating\"\" 12 loddars like that? If enough loddars are created in such a way (basically as IOUs for IOUs, if I'm interpreting this correctly), will we have inflation? What keeps this in check? Is it credibility of whoever issues the promise for loddars? And when those loddars are destroyed -- because of the wildfire or whatever -- is the individual that is \"\"owed\"\" them just screwed? What is an example of this happening in the real world? Would be if a company makes a promise of some payment, and it turns out that it can't be fulfilled? That company would still \"\"owe\"\" that money to someone, right? Sorry for the string of questions tacked on to your great post, but I feel as though you made a very illuminating point and then just stopped. Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "c0dbd2fb7715a83d7c08fc8865c08a4a",
"text": "For the record, I would never believe any major media outlet when it comes to a complex economic evaluation. I hope you wouldn't either. The article mentions that people are sending less mail. Maybe you're not old enough to remember sending letters, but people used to do it a lot.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "41f63306bc3f9040845fb2bb465aa323",
"text": "\"Well, first off - yes, every year the younger generation grows up but remember that the older generation also dying off/leaving the market place. Also, what happens if the younger generation can't take up enough debt in order to pay for previous commitments? Secondly, I think you're confusing the money supply with actual production. The two are pretty much divorced from each other - money doesn't require a \"\"resource\"\" per se (at least, not since leaving the gold standard), it just requires that someone is able/willing to take on debt. For example, every time you take a loan out from the bank, you are effectively creating money. This is called bank credit and if you live in a country that uses fractional reserve banking then it makes up a very large part of your money supply (think like up to 95%). When bank's create money, they only create the principle amount (ie. the original loan amount) and not the interest amount as well. This means that someone else needs to take out a loan so that you can repay the amount in interest that you owe on your new loan. This doesn't normally affect you because there are lots of people taking out lots of loans all the time and money is circulating around in the economy. The problem is that eventually the system gets to a stage where people can't really take out loans any more, they just have too much debt, and so you end up with a liquidity crisis like in 2008. So what I was saying is that either I'm missing something pretty obvious and I've got this wrong or this is exactly how it works and economists like to just ignore it for the benefits that it offers...\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "f678cba5b45561cd1e6bdf087202978e",
"text": "From their 10-K pulled directly from Edgar: As of October 22, 2015, there were 291,327,781 shares of Alphabet Inc.’s (the successor issuer pursuant to Rule 12g-3(a) under the Exchange Act as of October 2, 2015) (Alphabet) Class A common stock outstanding, 50,893,362 shares of Alphabet's Class B common stock outstanding, and 345,504,021 Alphabet's Class C capital stock outstanding. From here just do the math. The shares outstanding are listed on the first page of the 10-Q and 10-K reports. Edit: I believe Class B shares in this instance are not traded on the market and therefore would not be included.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "e8d5cf282efac11e79e96e042aacb9f1",
"text": "\"... until they collapse too!!! This is \"\"Luft Gesheft\"\": German/Yiddish for \"\"making money out of thin air\"\". Money should be made by making things and building things - adding value to something. Apple Computers is one example - they make real money.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "712ff8d60a2cb9c6e1102a6c05c1e352",
"text": "\"There will not be enough money to fill the holes that are caused by banks' easy money policies combined with the trillions in derivative \"\"hedges\"\" that the banks have off-balance sheet. The idea is that the chain reaction collapse of the European banking system can be avoided by plugging the holes in the dam in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. But it is a crazy idea. Next comes France, and then what? At some point there is not enough money to plug the holes and the entire facade collapses anyways. Adults would dismantle the Eurozone now and let each country see to itself. Let the banks collapse. Capital (in the form of dollars, gold, etc) will reappear and means will evolve rapidly to connect capital with people who need loans for business. Consumer loans are going the way of the dodo bird.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a32b83f86390f64e2b448abd3dd411ee",
"text": "So no single bank is willing to underwrite the whole issuance, and the amount each wants is only roughly a sixth of the total each? Or did Greece limit the amount of the issuance that could be underwritten by one bidder? Just trying to understand.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a35e2e0639412ca13b5848923dc0311e",
"text": "\"It depends on whether the loan is written as a non-recourse debt and what collateral was pledged. \"\"Non-recourse\"\" debt means that the issuer is limited to seizing the pledged collateral but cannot extend beyond those pledged assets. A \"\"recourse debt\"\" allows the issuer to seize the collateral and potentially other assets of those signed to the loan. In your example, a non-recourse loan would stop the issuer at seizing the property pledged as collateral (for instance the land remaining after the golden condor took your house), and it would stop there if that was the entirety of the collateral pledged. In the case of a recourse debt, each of you who signed loan are most likely going to be held responsible for the rest of the debt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonrecourse_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recourse_debt\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "09d174e114829e84242c7b2e794828a1",
"text": "Somewhere on your block, perhaps even in your neighborhood tonight, someone will become homeless. The reason of their homelessness might be a domestic fight, the loss of a job, or an argument with a parent. Nowadays, it very well could be caused by a foreclosure; but whatever the reason, that family will be all of a sudden on the street.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "56b428c168e5c4bff824ccdd0fc4dfa4",
"text": "\"It's OK... you can just admit you don't fully understand what happened... Here's a quick run down: 1) Private banks (like Chase, Wells Fargo, etc.) start making bad loans. They do this intentionally because... 2) The bad loans are then bundled into what are called \"\"Mortgage Backed Securities\"\". 3) Ratings agencies like Standard and Poors rate these mortgage backed securities as AAA safe investments. Even though they know, and the banks know, they're junk. 4) Companies who don't (AIG) or can't (Fannie/Freddie) write sub prime mortgages are then sold bad mortgages as AAA rated investments. 5) The sales of investments are so popular and so profitable that the banks continue making more bad loans SOLELY so they can re-sell them as investments. 6) The laws preventing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from making sub prime loans are lifted and they start doing the same thing as everyone else, just before the collapse begins. For most of the time these hijinks were going on, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were actually prevented from taking part.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "fefb2bebc863d73f23a0dfeed3af1802",
"text": "Question: So basically the money created in this globalized digital world where capital is free to roam, it is referring to digital money and not actual physical cash. So the goldbugs that talk about america becoming weimar republic is delusional, since there isn't enough physical cash in relations to how big the economy is. And it is actually the debt lending that acts as a derivative of cash money that goes around posing as the money supply or the blood supply of an economy, and that feels like inflation, but when the debt is defaulted on or destroyed, underwritten or even paid back closing the circuit then it's deflationary? But does defaulting on ones debt create inflation since that money is still in the system and not being paid off? You know, when debts are paid off they are taken out of the system.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b125e6b7d643fab3ae3c4f082266a4ab",
"text": "True story: There are several Admirals in the United States Navy that still do not understand how to use e-mail. They have their staff print the e-mails into hard copy and then either hand write or type a reply (on a typewriter) for their staff to send back as an e-mail.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d18937e29c7c41d168272b341dbd4925",
"text": "They better wipe their goddamn servers when that happens. Though with the number of mishaps they've had so far they'll probably just move some unencrypted, non-password-protected file named ssns_and_names.xls into the recycle bin and leave the servers on the side of the road, thinking there's no way someone can get the data now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "57fd51c1df927384b3918a2977173447",
"text": "\"Hi Ly Sok You could give free maps out to your clients. Easily print these off. Talk about the city as you drive through pointing out good value restaurants and places of interest. When someone buys something from me. I try to understand it as \"\"someone buying my time\"\" so I like to think of there problems. Your clients are mostly tourists or locals I assume. Locals like to here local news and learn things -like new roads being built or a cinema opening. Crime and cool things going on. Tourists want to make there money go further and so learning about the best local experience is often what they want to do. A pick up service is often appreciated and possibly you could emphasis to tourists how safe certain areas are and that maybe they should hide there flashy phone or camera in this area. I feel recommendations are the way to go. Giving a number they can text you on makes it easier to send a location. For pick ups. Since uber is a big thing for clients back home. Maybe you could parody the name \"\"TukUber\"\" This would instantly make people remember you and you could also look at how you could make your service like uber on a personal level. Sounds like a fun project. Good luck\"",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
8b6db63b5cb1dbbe8937178e3d5d9f6a
|
Why is Google's current nasdaq market cap almost twice the current share price * the No. of shares outstanding?
|
[
{
"docid": "a26da9e8aaa057b993b4972726e78b83",
"text": "For each class A share (GOOGL) there's a class C share (GOOG), hence the missing half in your calculation. The almost comes from the slightly higher market price of the class A shares (due to them having voting powers) over class C (which have no voting powers). There's also class B share which is owned by the founders (Larry, Sergei, Eric and perhaps some to Stanford University and others) and differs from class A by the voting power. These are not publicly traded.",
"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": "8f399907f2221e4bdc9aefb8c11cf52c",
"text": "This is from Google Finance right now.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "d22e351c9ec928739d7ed725da136615",
"text": "How is it possible that a publicly traded investment company's net asset value per share is higher than their share price? Wouldn't you (in theory) be able to buy the company and liquidate it to make a profit of (NAV/share - price/share)*number of shares, ignoring transaction costs and such? I realize that since part of their portfolio is in private equity, NAV is hard to calculate and hard to liquidate as well, but it doesn't really seem to make sense to me. Would love some input. The company I'm talking about in this instance is 180 Degree Capital Corp, but this isn't the first time I've seen this.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "40c67fc9827ecfc5222068fa8965c9fe",
"text": "For the lazy, Wikipedia says: The term microcap stock (also micro-cap) refers to the stock of public companies in the United States which have a market capitalization of roughly $300 million or less. The shares of companies with a market capitalization of less than $50 million are typically referred to as nano-cap stocks. Many micro-cap and nano-cap stocks are traded over-the-counter with their prices quoted on the OTCBB or the Pink Sheets. A few of the larger, more established microcaps are listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market or American Stock Exchange (AMEX). Micro-cap and especially nano-cap stocks are notorious for their volatility. A high percentage of these companies fail to execute their business plans and go out of business. Fraud and market manipulation are not uncommon, and the transactions costs in trading can be quite high. Pricing is more likely to be inefficient, since fewer institutional investors and analysts operate in this space, due to the relatively small dollar amounts involved and the lack of liquidity.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "5db2500544c713428b4b849702c8e351",
"text": "In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69923fb1d6e6e062c5b30216a5600c26",
"text": "Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7fb7c13002e733a544e44b933d8248ef",
"text": "Dividends would be a possible factor you are ignoring. If Dell has another quarter or two to pay out dividends that could account for some of the difference there. I don't think there is a confirmed date of when the deal is done yet other than around the end of Dell's second quarter which was in the LA Times link you cited. There is also the potential for the terms of the deal to be revised that is another possibility here. Have you examined other deals where a public company went private to see how the stock performed in the last few months before the deal closed?",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "69c205cbf9bf56e0b9473160c3e8c9ba",
"text": "Market Capitalization is the equity value of a company. It measures the total value of the shares available for trade in public markets if they were immediately sold at the last traded market price. Some people think it is a measure of a company's net worth, but it can be a misleading for a number of reasons. Share price will be biased toward recent earnings and the Earnings Per Share (EPS) metric. The most recent market price only reflects the lowest price one market participant is willing to sell for and the highest price another market participant is willing to buy for, though in a liquid market it does generally reflect the current consensus. In an imperfect market (for example with a large institutional purchase or sale) prices can diverge widely from the consensus price and when multiplied by outstanding shares, can show a very distorted market capitalization. It is also a misleading number when comparing two companies' market capitalization because while some companies raise the money they need by selling shares on the markets, others might prefer debt financing from private lenders or sell bonds on the market, or some other capital structure. Some companies sell preferred shares or non-voting shares along with the traditional shares that exist. All of these factors have to be considered when valuing a company. Large-cap companies tend to have lower but more stable growth than small cap companies which are still expanding into new markets because of their smaller size.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "010b125cc1d4bd32e988b62c1b1cffdd",
"text": "\"No, a jump in market capitalization does not equal the amount that has been invested. Market cap is simply the stock price times the total number of shares. This represents a theoretical value of the company. I say \"\"theoretical\"\" because the company might not be able to be sold for that at all. The quoted stock price is simply what the last buyer and seller of stock agreed upon for the price of their trade. They really only represent themselves; other investors may decide that the stock is worth more or less than that. The stock price can move on very little volume. In this case, Amazon had released a very good earnings report after the bell yesterday, and the price jumped in after hours trading. The stock price is up, but that simply means that the few shares traded overnight sold for much higher than the closing price yesterday. After the market opens today and many more shares are traded, we'll get a better idea what large numbers of investors feel about the price. But no matter what the price does, the change in market cap does not equal the amount of new money being invested in the company. Market cap is the price of the most recent trades extrapolated out across all the shares.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "3be9de325005a3b81d2802bac87ba204",
"text": "Take a look at apple. It has no debt. So the ev is basically mkt cap - cash. Also remember market cap is the float * share price nothing else. Obviously share price takes into account the assets of the firm into perpituituy but the way you phrased it, adding debt , didnt sound quite right to me. We remove cash since someone buying a company isn't going to pay for your cash. In the transaction cash is distributed to share holders then the company is sold.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "16312ee390023028d462d234d101f83e",
"text": "Yahoo's share price more than tripled under her watch. ($15.45 in July 2012 when she joined, $54.02 when she left). Contrast that to the previous 5 years where it was cut in half ($31 to $15 between 2007 and 2012). You have to go back 17 years to 2000 to find Yahoo being at the $50+ mark again. Microsoft has only doubled in the last 5 years, Google is up 3.5x which is slightly behind Yahoo as well. Say what you want, but to stockholders, she has been good.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "dbab73634832d7aac0ac778943625e59",
"text": "There are kind of two answers here: the practical reason an acquirer has to pay more for shares than their current trading price and the economic justification for the increase in price. Why must the acquirer must pay a premium as a practical matter? Everyone has a different valuation of a company. The current trading price is the lowest price that any holder of the stock is willing to sell a little bit of stock for and the highest that anyone is willing to buy a little bit for. However, Microsoft needs to buy a controlling share. To do this on the open market they would need to buy all the shares from people who's personal valuation is low, and then a bunch from people whose valuation is higher and so on. The act of buying that much stock would push the price up by buying all the shares from people who are really willing to sell. Moreover, as they buy more and more, the remaining people increase their personal valuation so the price would really shoot up. Acquirers avoid this situation by offering to buy a ton of stock at a substantially higher, single price. Why is Linkedin suddenly worth more than it was yesterday? Microsoft is expecting to be able to use its own infrastructure and tools to make more money with Linkedin than Linkedin would have before. In other words, they believe that the Linkedin division of Microsoft after the merger will be worth more than Linkedin alone was before the merger. This synergistic idea is the theoretical foundation for mergers in general and the main reason people use to argue for a higher price. You could also argue that by expressing an interest in Linkedin, Microsoft may be telling us something it knows about Linkedin's value that maybe we didn't realize before because we aren't as smart and informed as the people on Microsoft's board. But since it's Microsoft that's doing the buying in this case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is not the main effect. Given Microsoft's history, the idea that they buy expensive things because they have money to burn is more compelling than the idea that they have an insight into a company's value that we don't.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0c827880aa2aea2a90fadbf4dd07ad8b",
"text": "You can calculate the fully diluted shares by comparing EPS vs diluted (adjusted) EPS as reported in 10K. I don't believe they report the number directly, but it is a trivial math exercise to reach it. The do report outstanding common stock (basis for EPS).",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "b6ed8fecb07ede6439c758eb40d85dfe",
"text": "Market cap should be share price times number of shares, right? That's several orders of magnitude right there...",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0390f2d24db9cccefd2200541646e809",
"text": "\"Market cap is the current value of a company's equity and is defined as the current share price multiplied by the number of shares. Please check also \"\"enterprise value\"\" for another definition of a company`s total value (enterprise value = market cap adjusted for net nebt). Regarding the second part of your question: Issuing new shares usually does not affect market cap in a significant way because the newly issued shares often result in lower share prices and dilution of the existing share holders shares.\"",
"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": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
7139f72ca09bebf6b1ae5855e2ed35d3
|
Does FHA goes hand in hand with PMI ?
|
[
{
"docid": "2cf27b4fe4e03d82a028792557e651f9",
"text": "FHA insured loans must 'go hand in hand' with PMI, because the FHA element is the insurance itself. The FHA isn't actually giving you a loan, that's coming from a lender; instead, the FHA is insuring the loan, at some cost to you - but allowing a loan to folks who may not be able to afford it normally (lower down payment requirements and a somewhat cheaper PMI). FHA-insured loans may be lower rates in some cases than non-FHA insured loans because of this backing; that's because they make it easier for people of poorer credit histories with smaller down payments to get a house in the first place. Those people would tend to have a harder time getting a loan, and be charged sometimes usurious rates to get it. Low down payment and mediocre credit history (think 580-620) mean higher risk, even beyond the risk directly coming from the poor loan to value ratio. Comparing this table of Freddie Mac rates to this table of FHA-backed loan rates, the loan rates seem comparable (though somewhat lagging in changes in some cases). FHA loans are not nearly the size or complexity of loan population as Freddie Mac, so be wary of making direct comparisons. Looking into this in more detail, pre-collapse (before 12/07), FHA rates were a bit lower - average rate was about .5 points lower - but starting with 12/07, FHA average rates were usually higher than Freddie Mac rates for 30 year fixed loans: in 1/2009 for example they were almost a point higher. As of the last data I see (5/13) the rates were within 0.1 points most months. This may be in part because Freddie Mac had looser requirements to get a loan pre-collapse, then tightened significantly, then started to loosen some (also around June 2013, rates climbed significantly due to some signals from the Fed, although they're almost back to their lows thanks to the Fed again). These are averages across all loans, so you get some noise as a result. Loan interest rates are very personal, in general: they depend on your credit, your house and down payment, and your bank (which varies by your location). The best thing to do is to shop around yourself and just see what you get, and ask your lender any questions you have: if you pick a local lender with a good service history and who is willing to talk to you in person (ie, has a direct phone number), you'll have no trouble getting answers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "868e0d42a9b2ef712f073f431628059d",
"text": "I don't know that FHA loans have better rates than conventional loans. I've never heard that and some quick googling didn't yield anything (please correct me if I'm wrong). So if you have the necessary down payment to get a conventional loan, I'm not sure I see any benefit for looking at FHA loans. I think the only benefit outside of a low down payment is the ability to (possibly) get a loan with a lower credit score.",
"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": "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": "9bcc0c9036c690555368b96512ef7ed8",
"text": "\"A Tweep friend asked me a similar question. In her case it was in the larger context of a marriage and house purchase. In reply I wrote a detail article Student Loans and Your First Mortgage. The loan payment easily fit between the generally accepted qualifying debt ratios, 28% for house/36 for all debt. If the loan payment has no effect on the mortgage one qualifies for, that's one thing, but taking say $20K to pay it off will impact the house you can buy. For a 20% down purchase, this multiplies up to $100k less house. Or worse, a lower down payment percent then requiring PMI. Clearly, I had a specific situation to address, which ultimately becomes part of the list for \"\"pay off student loan? Pro / Con\"\" Absent the scenario I offered, I'd line up debt, highest to lowest rate (tax adjusted of course) and hack away at it all. It's part of the big picture like any other debt, save for the cases where it can be cancelled. Personal finance is exactly that, personal. Advisors (the good ones) make their money by looking carefully at the big picture and not offering a cookie-cutter approach.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "9950469cf36e87e3363ce390d3a061af",
"text": "Strictly by the numbers, putting more than 20% down is a losing proposition. With interest rates still near all time lows, you're likely able to get a mortgage for less than 4%. The real rate of a return on the market (subtracting inflation and taxes) is going to be somewhere around 5-6%. So by this math, you'd be best off paying the minimum to get out of PMI, and then investing the remainder in a low fee index fund. The question becomes how much that 1-2% is worth to you vs how much the job flexibility is worth. It boils down to your personal risk preference, life conditions, etc. so it is difficult to give good advice. The 1-2% difference in your rate of return is not going to be catastrophic. Personally, I would run the numbers with your fiance. Build a spreadsheet tracking your estimated net worth under the assumption that you make a 20% down payment and invest the rest. Then hold all other factors equal, and re-build the spreadsheet with the higher down payment. Factor in one of you losing your job for a few years, or one of you taking off for a while to raise the kids. You can make a judgement call based how the two of you feel about those numbers.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5711d12602cfcbaf9d52c641416cb4d",
"text": "\"Fundamentals: Then remember that you want to put 20% or more down in cash, to avoid PMI, and recalculate with thatmajor chunk taken out of your savings. Many banks offer calculators on their websites that can help you run these numbers and figure out how much house a given mortgage can pay for. Remember that the old advice that you should buy the largest house you can afford, or the newer advice about \"\"starter homes\"\", are both questionable in the current market. =========================== Added: If you're willing to settle for a rule-of-thumb first-approximation ballpark estimate: Maximum mortgage payment: Rule of 28. Your monthly mortgage payment should not exceed 28 percent of your gross monthly income (your income before taxes are taken out). Maximum housing cost: Rule of 32. Your total housing payments (including the mortgage, homeowner’s insurance, and private mortgage insurance [PMI], association fees, and property taxes) should not exceed 32 percent of your gross monthly income. Maximum Total Debt Service: Rule of 40. Your total debt payments, including your housing payment, your auto loan or student loan payments, and minimum credit card payments should not exceed 40 percent of your gross monthly income. As I said, many banks offer web-based tools that will run these numbers for you. These are rules that the lending industy uses for a quick initial screen of an application. They do not guarantee that you in particular can afford that large a loan, just that it isn't so bad that they won't even look at it. Note that this is all in terms of mortgage paymennts, which means it's also affected by what interest rate you can get, how long a mortgage you're willing to take, and how much you can afford to pull out of your savings. Also, as noted, if you can't put 20% down from savings the bank will hit you for PMI. Standard reminder: Unless you explect to live in the same place for five years or more, buying a house is questionable financially. There is nothing wrong with renting; depending on local housing stock it may be cheaper. Houses come with ongoung costs and hassles rental -- even renting a house -- doesn't. Buy a house only when it makes sense both financially and in terms of what you actually need to make your life pleasant. Do not buy a house only because you think it's an investment; real estate can be a profitable business, but thinking of a house as simultaneously both your home and an investment is a good way to get yourself into trouble.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "a5a476e5354b28a79ba529d42d2dabdd",
"text": "When I was a contractor I prioritize this way. 6 months salary nest egg while contributing to tax deferred retirement then after that you can pre pay your mortgage. Remember you can't skip a month even if you prepay. So once you pay that extra to your mortgage you lose that flexibility.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "1a583f8aa944dd9185528d222d199839",
"text": "\"As Mhoran answered, typical match, but some have no match at all, so not bad. The loan provision means you can borrow up to $50k or 50% of your balance, whichever is less. 5 year payback for any loan, but a 10 year payback for a home purchase. I am on the side of \"\"don't do it\"\" but finance is personal, and in some situations it does make sense. The elephant in this room is the expenses within the 401(k). Simply put, a high enough expense will wipe out any benefit from tax deferral. If you are in this situation, I recommend depositing to the match, but not a cent more. Last, do they offer a Roth 401(k) option? There's a high probability you will never be in as low a tax bracket as the next few years, now's the time to focus on the Roth deposits, if not in the 401(k), then in an IRA.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "8166c54b8bbc1309d05cdb9d94a18589",
"text": "There may be a third option. The bank gives you the first mortgage of 80%, and a second, maybe a HELOC, for that missing 5%. This way, you get the lower rate and the money they'd charge you for PMI goes to paying down the second loan. Alternately, do you have any other sources to tap to bridge this small gap? A 401(k) loan perhaps? The rate willbe low, and for home purchase, a 10 yr payback. If these aren't viable options, I agree that taking the PMI route while tracking the balance is the way to go.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "48868ffe482149e6978a8f1257960eff",
"text": "The calculations you suggest have some issues, but I think they are not necessary to answer the question: It sounds like you are buying the house either way. So the question really is simply whether to pay toward your house first or your loan first. In that case, the answer is simple: pay whichever has the highest interest rate first. Make the minimum payment on the other until the first is paid off. Remember this and make it your mantra for the rest of your life. If you have any debts (such as credit cards) that charge a rate higher than the two options you have presented, do them first. Now, be careful as you compute the interest rates. Most likely you can deduct interest on your mortgage, so its effective interest rate is lower [it is (1-T)*R instead of R, where T is your marginal tax rate]. For a while, the cost of mortgage insurance will make your effective mortgage rate artificially high, but it sounds like you intend to get to that 20% hurdle pretty fast, so my guess is that this is not a big factor. Congratulations on your bonus and good luck with your new home.",
"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": "c4b45818eefda5e3896fd0844e788727",
"text": "Take some of the commentary on home buying forums with a grain of salt. I too have read some of the commentary on these forums such as myFICO, Trulia, or Zillow and rarely is the right advice given or proper followup done. Typical 401k withdrawals for home purchase would not be considered a hardship. However, most employer 401k plans will allow you to take a loan for 401k as long as you provide suitable documentation: HUD-1 statement, Real Estate Contract, Good Faith Estimate, or some other form of suitable documentation as described by the plan administrator. For instance, I just took a 401k loan to pay for closing costs and I had to provide only the real estate contract. Could I not follow through with the contract? Sure, but what if I am found out for fraud? Then the plan administrator would probably end up turning the distribution into a taxable distribution. I wouldn't go to jail in this hypothetical situation - I am only stealing from myself. But the law states that certain loan situations are not liable for tax as long as that situation still exists. In the home loan situation, my employer allows for a low interest, 10 year loan. My employer also allows for a pre-approved loan for any purpose. This would be a low interest, 5 year loan. There is also the option to not do a loan at all. But normally that is only allowed after you have exhausted all your loan options and the government makes it intentionally harsh (30% penalty at least) to discourage people from dumping their tax free haven 401k accounts. That all being said, many plans offer no prepayment penalty. So like my employer has for us, I can pay it all back in full whenever I want or make micropayments every month. Otherwise, it comes out of my pay stub biweekly. So if it were to fall through, I could just put it all back like it never happened. Though with my plan, there is a cooling off period of 7 days before I can take another loan. Keep in mind that if you leave your employer then the full amount becomes a taxable distribution unless you pay it back within a certain period of time after leaving the employer. Whether this fits your financial situation is up to you, but a loan is definitely preferred over a partial or full withdrawal since you are paying yourself back for your rightly earned retirement which is just as important.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "7dac3bea905e716cc1763cc0cedb785b",
"text": "I could be wrong, but I doubt you're going to be able to roll the current mortgage into a new one. The problem is that the bank is going to require that the new loan is fully collateralized by the new house. So the only way that you can ensure that is if you can construct the house cheaply enough that the difference between the construction cost and the end market value is enough to cover the current loan AND keep the loan-to-value (LTV) low enough that the bank is secured. So say you currently owe $40k on your mortgage, and you want to build a house that will be worth $200k. In order to avoid PMI, you're going to have to have an LTV of 80% or less, which means that you can spend no more than $160k to build the house. If you want to roll the existing loan in, now you have to build for less than $120k, and there's no way that you can build a $200k house for $120k unless you live in an area with very high land value and hire the builders directly (and even then it may not be possible). Otherwise you're going to have to make up the difference in cash. When you tear down a house, you are essentially throwing away the value of the house - when you have a mortgage on the house, you throw away that value plus you still owe the money, which is a difficult hole to climb out of. A better solution might be to try and sell the house as-is, perhaps to someone else who can tear down the house and rebuild with cash. If that is not a viable option (or you don't want to move) then you might consider a home equity loan to renovate parts of the house, provided that they increase the market value enough to justify the cost (e.g. modernize the kitchen, add on a room, remodel bathrooms, etc. So it all depends on what the house is worth today as-is, how much it will cost you to rebuild, and what the value of the new house will be.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "0dc497d277202eaf06f2613555187913",
"text": "\"I read the linked article as gef05 did, it states that the bank must stop charging PMI. But. My understanding is different. I understood that the requirement to remove PMI at sub 80 loan to value only occurred after the natural amortization time had passed. For example, you buy a $100K home, you will be at 80% LTV the day you owe 80K. This date can be calculated at the closing as you know your numbers by then. There's nothing stopping you from asking the bank to stop charging PMI sooner, but I believe they already have an end date in mind. Besides the appraisal request, what exactly did they give as the reason they won't cancel PMI? Edit - I just re-read the link. The line \"\"you show that the value of the property hasn't gone down\"\" makes the bank's appraisal request reasonable, IMHO.\"",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "6d2c5c75a3a4275cd1e4dd42f690d634",
"text": "If you are putting down less than 20% expect to need to pay PMI. When you first applied they should have described you a group of options ranging from minimal to 20% down. The monthly amounts would have varied based on PMI, down payment, and interest rate. The maximum monthly payment for principal, interest, taxes, and insurance will determine the maximum loan you can get. The down payment determines the price of the house above the mortgage amount. During the most recent real estate bubble, lenders created exotic mortgage options to cover buyers who didn't have cash for a down-payment; or not enough income for the principal and interest, or ways to sidestep PMI. Many of these options have disappeared or are harder to get. You need to go back to the bank and get more information on your different options, or find a lender broker who will help you.",
"title": ""
},
{
"docid": "93a09e9dfa2c54463cae53fc1b3fb9c3",
"text": "Correct. The developers know that and the Fed will still willingly back all these mortgages and the Government is backing all the private insurers who also know their risk is too great in these areas. Private insurers would never insure these homes without the Government backing them. It is moral hazard gone wild.",
"title": ""
}
] |
fiqa
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.